REMARKABLE SEAFIELD LIBEL CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12513, 31 July 1926, Page 11

REMARKABLE SEAFIELD LIBEL CASE

Dowager Countess and Daughter Awarded Damages

“Excellent New Zealand Traditions ”

The Dowager Countess (Mary Elizabeth Nina) of Seafield was awarded £IOOO damages, and the Countess (Nina Carolin Ogilvie Grant), of Seafiield, £SOO damages, in an action for libel which came before Mr Justice Horridge and a special jury in London on June 11th. The car ■ has special interest to New Zealanders, for the reason that the family was well kr. twn in the Dominion, particularly in the ' th Island, where its members resided.

THE action arose out of a claim in * the Scottish Courts disputing tho right of {ho Countess to succeed to tho Earldom of Scaficld. Tho Countess of Seaiieid. who was born in 1906, sued as an infant through her ttexfc friend. Sir Reginald Maeleod of Macleod. On the death of her father, tho eleventh Ear! of Seafie Id, in November, 1915, she succeeded, and became countess in her own right. Tho action was brought against Mr Georg© ilbcrforco Grant, of Cambridge terrace, VY .2, and was based on a letter alleged to ha vo been sent by him on January 20t]i, 1020, to Air

Alexander Tullocb, editor of tho “Strathspey Herald.” Damages were claimed, and an injunction was sought restraining Mr Grant from repeating tho alleged libel. Mr Spence, K.C., and Sir Albion liicharosou appeared lor tho countess, and Mr H. G. Garland represented Mr Grant, who pleaded that the words complained of were not defamatory. Mr Spenco said that tho libel was a very serious one. The DowagerCountess was the widow of the eleventh Earl, and tho Countess was her daughter, and serious charges were made against both. Their effect was that the Countess was not tho daughter of the Dowager-Countess, and that she and her mother were guilty of tho 'imposture of putting her forward as the Countess. An acLion was heard in tho Scottish Courts, in which it was claimed by a Mr Alexander Grant that tho eighth, ninth, anti tenth Earls had no title, and that ho ought to be tho eighth Earl. wa:;ing of a friendship 11)0 eleventh Earl made the acquaintance of Mr Wilberforee Grant,

a retired civil servant, wlio, in 1912, accompanied him to Barbados. After tho journey tho friendship was not so warm. Mr Grant did not get on very well with the Countess, and that may have had something to do with the letter which formed the basis of this action. In 1910 tho Earl was killed in Flanders. S'ome time ago Mr Wilberfoico Grant mad© the acquaintance of Mr Alexander Grant, who was seeking to establish his claim to the title and estates. Mr Wilberforee Grant was in some degree a member of the great clan of the Grants, and it seemed that, if Alexander succeeded, Wilberforee would thou bAome very closely connected with the eighth Earl. Wilborforco became very busy in tho matter, and actively assisted Alexander. The claim of Alexander in the Scottish Courts was that there was a secret marriage of tho seventh Karl and liis Countess Alternatively, if there was rot n secret marriage, ho was their illegitimate child, and that their subsrt marriage legitimatized him. V’ilbpvfnrrp was examined as a witnosl:. :*ud bo wa« ashed if bo bad not atndiod fo Die 1 Vova gor-Oomitess* on the death her husband, for a loan

of money, and thati she refused him. Ho admitted this. THE LETTER The letter complained of was as follows : “Have you heard the report that the present Countess is said not to be Jter daughter, Lord Strathspey called upon a prominent society huly Iricnd ol mine, and >!» • came io call on mo and gave me the particulars. “We oan easily account for her asking for a commission on which an article appeared in your paper. This Haws wiil startle the trustees and society, ns she is drawing money to which she is not entitled “»Senficld's letter to me that he possessed evidence about the birth of the claimant, and that i»o ■\ir.;t':d her at Cullen’.y before she died, in 15)11. (This sentence, counsel pointed om. was not complete.) “This letter was a very pleasant ! surprise io me, and will win the for the claimant, coupled wiili others of his letters which 1 luckily have, refuting Lady ftenfield’s mosi- insult- ; ing references to myself. This will easily explain why she fled, for it will soon reach the ears of the public.” i A consultation took place at the in- I

Thf jury £:l()f> r ) .hinugrK the Dowager Countess ami ,€OOO to the Countess.