SLANDER ACTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3757, 16 March 1926, Page 38

SLANDER ACTION.

UNUSUAL FEATURES. PLAINTIFF SUCCEEDS. WELLINGTON, March 12. A case with many unusual features, in which £3OO damages were claimei for alleged slander, was heard before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and a jury of 12 to-lay. The parteis were Eleanor Heap, wife of Walter Heap, a salesman, of Wellington, plaintiff, and Elizabeth Green, a married woman, Tinnkori road, defendant who was sued in respect of her separate estate. Mr A. Dunn appeared on behalf of plaintiff and Mr O. C. Mazengarb for defendant. Plaintiff state! that while employed as a saleswoman by Macduffs, of Culm street, defendant falsely and maliciously published concerning her a statement to Mr Richards, of Macduffs that the plaintiff had stolen tobacco, in consequence of which she was summarily dismissed On the same day, December 23, 1925. defendant further stated to plaintiff’s husband: ‘‘Stanislaus has been our at night with your wife, and misconducted himself with her. He is in Macduffs every day seeing your wife. lie takes her home from work every night f o Courtenay place,” whereby plaintiff’s reputation and character had been greatly injured. She claimed special damages of £IOO for the loss of employment. £350 in respect of the allocations as regards theft, and £350 in respect to the allegations regarding adultery, a total of £BOO. Mr Dunn, for plaintiff, said the defence did not plead justification. The fact of th“ matter would be shown to be that defen-, dant was madly jealous regarding Stanilaus, who had been a friend of hers for 10 years, and she had made the allegations in spit<*. The jury had not to decide whether the statements were true or not, nor would counsel for the defence be permitted to cross-examine witnesses to prove them true The defendant said that the charges were not true, but that she believed them true when she made them. , Mr Mazengarb: No. All we say is that the defendant made the charges believing them to be true. , . . . Mr Dunn said that if the defendant believed the statements to be true she would be privileged. His Honor would direct them ns to privilege, and assuming that defendant was given the benefit of th*» privilege she would be protected, unless it could be proved she was actuated by malice. , e The defence denied the publication ot the statements, as allegedly made, but ad milted thinking, from information supplied by Vincent Stanilaue, that the plaintiff was supplying goods- belonging to her employer to customers without receiving sufficient payment, and was ar ranging for Stanilaus to receive goods belonging to her employers on plaintiff s be half, but that—if it were proved that she used such words as alleged—they were not spoken maliciously. It was denied tliat plaintiff lost her employment in consequence of the alleged statements. Stanislaus was an old friend of defendants, ant. frequently was her guest. Becoming aware of the alleged frauds on Macduff s. defendant endeavoured to dissuade Stanis lnus from complicity, but* failing, went to Heap and urged him to speak to plaintiff about the matter. Heap declined, and de fendant then gave information to Richards, acting under a sense of duty to her family and others, and believing her statements to he true. The words published were only to plaintiff’s husband and to Richards, who each had a duty and interest in the matter. Defendant pleaded privilege. Detailed evidence regarding the actions nnd conversations of the parties was Walter Heap, husband of plaintiff, m the course of evidence, said Mrs Green hod called to see him privately, aud had said: “Your wife is a thing.” . A director of M’Duff’s (Limited) sari he told one of the employers about the giving of parcels over the counter, Mrs Heap’s name having been mentioned Plaintiff was surprised that he had lost faith in her, and asked her to leave immediately. * , , „ Vincent Stanislaus denied the allegation. All the goods he had obtained a* the counter, where Mrs Green was serv ing, had been paid for. He had taken a parcel for Mrs Heap. Plaintiff had asked him to call, and he had left some goods for her. Her husband had said they had better be careful. Plaintiff had Raid there was no danger. Asked whether he did not get the goods without paying the full value for them, and if lie did not call it thieving, witness said he had been a party to the dishonest action committed by Mrs Heap, but was not a thief. After the evidence had been heard, his Honor summed up. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for £250.

Store cattle are now being; driven through in fairly largo numbers from Gisborne to the Bay of Plenty (reports the Tauranga Times). One lot of 600 recently arrived for a grazier in the Maketu Riding of Tauranga County.