Implied Unchastity Alleged In Claim

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 15, Issue 94, 11 September 1950, Page 6

Implied Unchastity Alleged In Claim

Alleging that the making and publishing of an oral statement had imputed unchastity to her, that her reputation had been injured and that she had been brought into odium and contempt, Betty Estelle Goodall, married of New Plymouth, brought a claim for damages against E. L. McKay, married woman, of 41 Arthur Street, Ponsonby, Auckland, before Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court.

General damages sought are £450, plus costs of and incidental to the claim and “such further or other relief as the court may deem just in the circumstances.”

Plaintiff was represented by Mr W. H. Hume, and defendant by Mr C. H. Croker.

In the statement of claim the plaintiff alleges that on or about the month of November, 1949, the defendant was visiting Charlotte Laura Grace Cattley, a married woman of New Plymouth, and that on this visit she made and published to the said Mrs Cattley the oral statement that the defendant believed or considered Barry Graeme Lelain, the adopted brother of the plaintiff, to be the child of the plaintiff. That oral statement, alleges the claim, “falsely and maliciously imputes unchastity to the plaintiff.” By reason of defendant making and publishing such statements, plaintiff’s character and reputation, it was alleged, had been injured and she had been brought into odium and contempt. The action was one of damages for slander, said Mr Hume. The boy was adopted about 10 years ago. A birth certificate and adoption papers would show conclusively that the child was not plaintiff’s. Tne alleged statement had gained a good deal of circulation at Frankleigh Park and plaintiff felt compelled to bring the proceedings to clear the air. Briefly, the evidence would show that defendant was known to plaintiff’s family and knew about the boy and his adoption. Mrs Cattley would give evidence of statements made to her by defendant which it was claimed were that the child was plaintiff’s. This gave an imputation of unchastity.