ACTION FOR SLANDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19275, 13 March 1926, Page 14

ACTION FOR SLANDER.

WOMAN PLEADS PRIVILEGE. ALLEGATION OF JEALOUSY. VERDICT OF £250 DAMAGES. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRKSS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Friday. A case with many unusual features, in which £BOO damages were claimed for alleged slander, was heard before Mr. Justice Sim and a jury of 12 to-day. The parifts were. Eleanor Heap, wife of Walter Heap, Wellington, salesman, plaintiff, and Elizabeth Green, u married woman, of Tinakori Read, sued in respect of her separate estate, defendant. Mr. A. Dunn appeared on behalf of plaintiff arid Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb for defendant. Plaintiff slated that wliile employed as a saleswoman by Mac Duff's, Limited, of Cuba Street, defendant falsely and maliciously published concerning her a statement to Mr. Richards, of Mac Duff's, that plaintiff had stolon tobacco, in consequence of which she was summarily dismissed. Defendant further stated to plaintiff's husband, " Stanislaus has been out at night with your wife and misconducted himself with her. He is in Mac Duff's every day seeing your wife. He takes her home from work every night to Countenay Place,," whereby plaintiff's reputation and character had been greatly injured. She churned special damages of £IOO for loss of employment, £350 in respect of allegations as regards theft and £350 in respect of allegations regarding adultery, a total of £BOO. Counsel Attributes Spite. Mr. Dunn said the defence did not plead justification. The fact of the matter would be shown to be that defendant was madly jealous regarding Stanislaus, who had been a friend of hers for 10 years, and made the allegations in spite. The jury had not to decide whether the statement's were true or not, nor would counsel for the defence be permitted to cross-examine witnesses to prove them true. Defendant said the charges were not true but that she believed them true when she made them. Mr. Mazengarb: No. All we say is that defendant made the charges believing them to be true. Mr. Dunn said that if defendant believed the statements true she would be privileged. His Honor would direct them as to privileges. Assuming that defendant were -given the benefit of privileges she would be protected unless it could be proved she was actuated by malice. The defence denied publication of the statements as allegedly made. It admitted thinking from information supplied by Vincent Stanislaus that plaintiff was supplying goods belonging to her employer to customers without receiving sufficient payment, and was arranging for Stanislaus to receive goods on plaintiff's behalf in fraud of her employers, but if it were proved that she used such words as alleged they were not spoken maliciously. Defendant's Sense of Duty. It was denied that, plaintiff lost her employment in consequence of the alleged statements. Stanilaus was an old friend of defendant's and fr' ""ulently was her guest. Becoming aware of the alleged frauds on Mac Duffs defendant endeavoured to dissuade Stanislaus from complicity, but failing, went to Heap and urged him to speak to plaintiff about the matter. Heap declined and defendant then gave information to Richards, acting under a sense of duty to her faily and others and believing her statements to be true. The words published were only to plaintiff's husband and to Richards, who each had a duty and interest in the matter. Defendant pleaded privilege. Detailed evidence regarding tho actions and conversation of the parties was taken. Walter Heap, husband of plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, said Mrs. Green had called to see him privately and had said: "Your wife is a thief." A director of McDuffs, Ltd., said he had been tofd one of the mployees was •giving parcels over the counter. Mrs. Heap's name had been mentioned. She was informed that he had lost faith in |ier and ho askecl lier to leave inimedu afely. Vincent Stanislaus denied the allegation*. All the goods he had obtained at the counter where Mrs. Green was serving had been aid for. He had taken a arcel for Mrs. Hea. Plaintiff had asked him to call Her husband, who was present, had sard they had better be careful. Plaintiff ha<t said there was no danger. Asked' whether he did. not get goods without paying full value for them, and if he did not ca!l it thieving, witness said he had been a party io a dishonest action committed by Mrs. Heap, but' wfcs not a thief. After further evidence His Honor summed up. The jury retired and returned a verdict for plaintiff for £250.