A WRONGED WOMAN.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17470, 2 June 1922, Page 2

A WRONGED WOMAN.

DAMAGES AWARDED. It is said there may be interesting developments in a Wanganui Supreme Court case to which brief reference was made in a message telegraphed recently by the Wanganui Press .Association agent. The case, which was a <:Hm for £IOOO damages, was heard by u* Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) an! a jury of twelve. The plaintiff, Mr; E. M. Hopwood, claimed that si'jii from Thomas Gill for eompensaiion for an outrage committed upon plaintiff at Utiku on the night of October 27th, 1921. . In opening the case for the plaintitt, counsel said thiifc the evidence wouU show that a cruel and atrocious assault had been committed on a decent woman while alone at her home 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 cnlv at week-ends On the evening of the assault the- defendant came over with some parcels of food. Just as he was leivmg, aftrr a friendly chat, he attacked the plaintiff. A desperate struggle ensued. A day or ' two later hr- came over to plaintiff and expressed liis 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 ho would not cross-examine her. He added that his presencein court was merely to as=ist the jury in coming to a proper determination as to wh't amount of damages should be awarded. Counsel for plaintiff, continuing his opening address, said it w:is for the jury only to consider the question of compensation. If the jury bore in mind the pain and anguish she had suffered to thin?: that anything less than £IOOO would be sufficient was ridiculous. The sum of £2IOO, OT even £SOOO. would not be adeqmte compensation fcr wh.it she had suffered.

It was agreed to ren'l to the jury the ovidenoe <;ivon by the plaintiff at the triaj of the defendant. Counsel for defendant, in addressing the jury, said its. only duty was to assess damages. The* defendant Gill was guilty of a very serious crime against a good weman. He was happy to hear from plaintiff's br.sband that there were no slanders or insinuations against plaintiff's good name in Utiku, and he was happy to say this was due tr> the att'tudo of Gifi at his trial, when, anxious to make reparation, he prrelaimed the good name of the 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. Tke defendant had caused plaintiff a great wrong, but ho too had suffered. From any_ point of view the price of the parity of a woman could pot be measured in money. Even if she was awarded millions the money would be tainted. He asked the 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 h ; s possessions, but to give him a chance to rehabilitate himself.

His 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 was proceeded against civilly for damages arising out of the same circumstances. His Honour said that the punishment made by the court was for a breach of the law, not for damages for the woman's in'ury. The law allowed the injured person to proceed civilly for compensation, and the jury as twelve reasonable men would have to consider what sum was .-air 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. Tho jury's verdict was for £950 and ccsts, and judgment was given for plaintiff accordingly for this amount. Gill is said to be a very wealthy man.