A SLANDER CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12298, 18 November 1925, Page 4

A SLANDER CASE

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT CAUSHC REMARKS BY MAGISTRATE “CAST NOT THE FIRST. STONE” At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday judgment for the defendant in the case of Hoskins v. Harrison was given by Mr C. E. Maun’sell, S.M. When the case was heard last Tuesday, November 10th, Mr Maunsell reserved decision. The plaintiff was Mary Hoskins, wife of Walter Stanley Hoskins, carpenter, of Karori, and niece of defendant, Edith Harrison, wife of Thomas Harrison, of Tokomaru, Manawatu. Mr A. B. Sievwright appeared for plaintiff, and Mr D. M. Ongley for defendant. The claim was for £ls damages for alleged slander, and £ls for alleged libel.

The plaintiff, said the . magistrate, sued defendant for damages to her character by reason of a letter written by defendant to plaintiff’s brother-in-law. There was a separate claim for alleged slander in statements made to a Mr Miles, but that called for passing reference only by reason of the conclusions at which tile magistrate arrived. The plaintiff and defendant were respectively niece and-aunt, continued the magistrate. It was alleged that the letter meant that the plaintiff was unchaste. The magistrate wished to say something of the defendant. She appeared to be a scandal monger, whose chief stock in trade was miking allegations of unohastity against her own relatives, including her sisters. Notwithstanding the defendant’s denial, the magistrate believed she did make the statements of plaintiff to Mrs Miles. It -was wholly unnecessary, Mrs Miles being a comparative stranger. It was unnecessary to have made the statement complained of in the letter to plaintiff’s brother-in-law, whom she did not even know. Instead of adopting a charitable and Christian-like course her attitude would appear to be that she was so free of sin that she was entitled to throw the first stone at her relatives. Her volubility in the witness box indicated that her control of her tongue was as weak as water. Whatever questionable measure of satisfaction she might derive from his decision, it was to be hoped that she would let the dead past bury itself, as on another occasion she might he less fortunate. By way of marking his disapproval of her conduct the magistrate deprived her of costs. Judgment was then given for defendant. ==-()<=’Q^=>(xg^-o-g=S'o<T~>o'gr>