A WRONGED WOMAN

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11223, 31 May 1922, Page 5

A WRONGED WOMAN

SUES FOR DAMAGES STORY OF A SHOCKING OUTRAGE REVIVED. £950 AWARDED. It is said there may he interesting developments in a Wanganui Supreme Court case to whioh brief reference was made in a message telegraphed recently by the Wanganui Press Association agent. The case, which was a claim for £IOOO damages, was heard hv the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout; ■and a jury of twelve. The plaintiff, Mrs E. M. Hop wood, claimed that sum from Thomas Gill for compensation for an outrage committed upon plaintiff at Utiku on the night of October 27th, 1921. In opening the case for the plaintiff, counsel said that the evidence would show that a cruel and atrocious assault had been committed on a decent woman while alone at her house at Utiku. The defendant was a bachelor who lived on his farm a short distance from the plaintiff’s house, but she was not very friendly with him. Plaintiff’s husband was working at a sawmill some miles away, and returned only at weekends. On the evening of the assault the defendant came over with some parcels of food. Just as he was leaving, after a friendly chat, he attacked the plaintiff. A desperate struggle ensued. A day or two later he came over to plaintiff and expressed his regrets for what had happened. Criminal proceedings followed, and the defendant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

Counsel for defendant stated that he would not object to plaintiff’s evidence and lie would not cross-examine her. He added that his presence in court was merely to assist the jury in coming to a proper determination as to what amount of damages should be awarded. QUESTION OF COMPENSATION. Counsel for plaintiff, continuing hia opening .address, said it was for the jury only to consider the question of compensation. If tlie jury bore in mind the pain and anguish she had suffered to think that anything less than £IOOO would be sufficient was ridiculous. The sum of £2OOO, or even £SOOO, would not be adequate compensation for what she had suffered.

It was agreed to read to the jury the evidence given by tho plaintiff at the trial of the defendant.

Counsel for defendant, in addressing the jury, said its only duty was to assess damages. Tho defendant Gill was guilty of a very serious crime against a good woman. He was happy to hear from plaintiff’s husband that there were no slanders or insinuations against plaintiff’s good name in Utiku, and ho was happy to say that this was due to the attitude of Gill at his trial, when, anxious to make reparation, he proclaimed the good name of tho plaintiff. Now he would have another opportunity of making reparation. Referring to the question of damages, counsel said that this was entirely a. matter for the jury, which would award what it thought fit. The defendant had caused plaintiff a great wrong, but he too had suffered. From any point of view the price of tho purity of a woman could not be measured in money. Even if she was awarded millions the money would b 9 tainted. 110 asked tho jury to remember that Gill had. already been, punished, and he would come out of gaol at the end of seven years a marked man. He asked the jury not to strip him naked of all his possessions, but to give him a chance to rehabilitate himself. THE ONLY ISSUE. Hia Honour said the only issue was to ascertain what damages were to be awarded to the plaintiff. It was rather an unusual case, because it was not often, that after a person had been punished for a felony he waa proceeded against civilly for damages arising out of tho same circumstances. His Honour said that tho punishment made by the court was for a breach of the law, not for damages for the woman’s injury. The law allowed tho injured person to proceed civilly for compensation, and the jury as twelve reasonable men would have to consider what sum was fair and right to award. They had not to consider punishment, for the law had already been vindicated, but what they had to ascertain was what was a fair sum -for the plaintiff in view of all the circumstances of the case. The jury’s verdict was for £950 and costs, and judgment was given for plaintiff accordingly for this amount Accused is said to be a very wealthy man.