TROUBLE OVER LETTER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21250, 2 August 1932, Page 12

TROUBLE OVER LETTER

WOMAN'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ALLEGED DEFAMATION DEFENDANT DENIES WRITING An action for damages for alleged defamation of character contained in an anonymous letter was heard before Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in tho Otahuhu Magistrate's Court yesterday. Tho plaintiff was Annie Elizabeth Neal, a married woman, of Otahuhu, who sued Thomas C. Robertson, labourer, of Otahuhu, for £3OO damages. In her statement of claim plaintiff alleged that defendant wroto and published a false and defamatory statement concerning her on or about February 13, 1931, in a letter sent to J. W. Lovell, taxi proprietor. Plaintiff claimed that by reason of tho statement her good name and reputation had been injured. James William Lovell said ho had a taxi stand at Hall Avenue, Otahuhu. He had known plaintiff for about two years. He received an anonymous letter signed "A. Mockery" on February 13, 1931. After referring to a letter which witness had written to the press regarding tho Napier earthquake the anonymous writer tnade cortain comments. From these witness said he concluded they could not possibly refer to any other person than plaintiff. Within an hour of receiving the letter witness had placed it in tho hands of the police. The statements as affecting witness were falso. Cross-examined, witness eaid ho first suspected tho writer to bo a certain person, not the defendant. Sergeant A. E. Rowell said ho had been shown tho letter, and had later discussed it with plaintiff and the previous witness. Witness said he had considered the letter carefully, as he was concerned whether it was an offence under the Post and Telegraph Act. He had suspected a certain person, but not defendant. Plaintiff in her evidence said she had obtained a separation from her husband | and was living apart from him. Sergeant Rowell had first told her of tho letter. While no names wore mentioned in tho letter she concluded from its contents that it referred to hez'self. She knew defendant and had known him some years ago when living in Grey Lynn. She could give no reason for his action. James William Taylor, solicitor's clerk, and Clarence C. Spedding, who said ho was engaged as an estate agent and had considerable experience in handwriting characteristics, also gave evidence. Counsel for defendant asked that plaintiff be nonsuited on the ground that she had not been identified as the person referred to in the letter. The magistrate said ho would note counsel's submission when considering judgment. Defendant in evidence said he did not write the Jotter. He knew Lovell, but had never quarrelled with him. In cross-examination, defendant said he had been 23 years in Otahuhu and had known plaintiff at Grey Lynn. After a lengthy cross-examination, defendant said there had been trouble between plaintiff and his family some four months ago. Defendant wrote a letter at the dictation of plaintiff's counsel. The magistrate reserved his decision.