ACTION FOR SLANDER.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1189, 14 December 1894, Page 30

ACTION FOR SLANDER.

Mr Justice Elchmond and a special jury of four, consisting of Montague Lang (foreman), Wm. Clark, Wm. Elton and John Casey, were engaged on Eriday in hearing an action for slander brought by Mary Dick, widow, Whinui-o-mata, against her father-in-law, David Dick, sen., damages being laid at .£5Ol and costs of the ae--I<Mr Wilford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Devine for the defendant. According to the statement of claim the defendant on the 19th of August last and again on the 23rd spoke and published the slapders complained of by the plaintiff. The words alleged tc> have been used referred to the plaintiff’s moral character. The plaintiff complained that in consequence of these words she had been much humiliated and shunned by her fellowcreatures. She therefore claimed <£ool damages for the alleged slander and payment of costs of the action. The statement of defence (1) denied the use of the alleged slanderous words, and (2) averred that if they had been used it was in the belief that they were true, as plaintiff had admitted to the defendant that she had misconducted herself with a farm servant in defendant’s employ. Henry Bennett, farmer, Eangiora, and brother-in-law of the plaintiff, deposed that when ho was at TVainui-o-mata -about the 19th of August last, the defendant, in gross language, made serious charges against the plaintiff’s moral character. Cross-examined: He came up from Canterbury partly to enquire into certain reports made concerning the plaintiff, and he found that there were circumstances connected with her which explained the defendant’s refusal to allow her to live any longer in his house. At the time witness was in the district, defendant’s wife (Mrs Dick, sen.) was seriously ill —believed to be dying—and there was a rumour coupling the plaintiff’s name with the suspicion of the poisoning of her mother-in-law. The detectives were enquiring into the matter. , Wm. Young, another of the plaintiff’s brothers-in-law, also gave evidence as to the language used by defendant concerning the plaintiff. In cross-examination the witness admitted that he and Bennett 'instructed Mr Wilford to bring the present suit. " Wm. John*McCutchen, blacksmith (until lately of Wainui-o-mata) and brother-in-law of the plaintiff, deposed that on the 23rd August last he was conversing with a farmer named C. L. Jenson, when, observing that defendant was listening, witness spoke to him inviting him out on to the road when lie could hear all that was being said. Defendant then made use of the slanderous words against Mrs Dick’s character and conduct that were complained David J. Dick, nephew of the defendant, and C. L. Jensen also gave evidence. Mr Devine then opened the case for the defence, and called David Dick, junr., who said he was a son of defendant. He met Bennett and Young by appointment on Sunday, August 19th, at his father s place for the purpose of giving them up the plaintiff’s clothes. These were supplied to them, after which they wanted to know the whole particulars of plaintiff’s character. His father was present on that occasion and told Young and Bennett certain matters with reference to the plaintiffs moral sharper,

After further evidence was heard, the jury retired, and after an absence of twenty minutes, returned into Court with a verdict for the defendant. The question of costs was reserved. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock on Tuesday morning.