A SLANDER PROVED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10542, 19 March 1920, Page 5

A SLANDER PROVED

RETURNED SOLDIER. MALIGNED, PLAINTIFF AWARDED DAMAGES,

An allegation of slander was the basis of a civil action heard at the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mx W, G. Riddell, S.M. The plaintiff, John William Elliott, of Rona Ray, wharfinger (Mr H. O’Leary), sued Henry Baker Tunnicliffe," of Rona Bay,, driver (Mr P. Jackson), for the sum of £95 as damages for a slander said to have been uttered by the defendant to various persons in September last. For the plaintiff, evidence was adduced whereby it was sought to show that, on September 6th, or thereabouts, Tunnicliffe, a returned soldier, informed Mrs Lucy Mary Brennan and her brother Charles Harris, that the

plaintiff u\as suffering from la cqr- , tain disease, contracted -while he was oa active service. As a result of this news, an engagement with a view to a marriage between Mrs Harris’s daughter and Elliott was terminated. Subsequently, it was ascertained that the plaintiff was not a victim of the disease, whereupon the contract was resumed, and later the marriage consummated.

Charles Harris and William Harris admitted that not only did they dislike the defendant, but also that they had threatened to “smack him up’’ it he continued to pay attentions to their sister, Mrs Munro.

The defence was a complete denial of the charge, and, in addition, it was contended that the objectionable statement was uttered by Charles Hams to the defendant. , Mrs Munro also gave evidence on behalf of TunniclifEo. The magistrate said that the evidence disclosed a considerable amount

of bad feeling between the parties, some members of the family tesfify- ' ing on behalf of the plaintiff, while another member of the same family was found siding with the defendant. In the circumstances, all the evidence had to"bo discounted, hut, even so, the weight was against the defendant, and therefore he was liable for damages. In assessing these ho had to take into consideration the plaintiff’s

position and character, and also the fact that he had allowed over three months to elapse before taking action. He considered the amount of damages as assessed in the claim to be etagger-

a.ted. .lodgment would be for the plaintiff for £ls and £4 8s costs.