MASTER-TON SITTINGS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1396, 23 March 1912, Page 15

MASTER-TON SITTINGS.

(Ik-fore Mr. J I II | ) allec.i;ij '-i wmix jrii\- awauds n \i\mi ion Il3i Telczraph.-Stccial 1 Has e ton Ma ch Another ca<o ot II I I 1 heard in (lie Suiiif! ( L t\i to I u to-day, hefure |,i. s Ho o Ml J t Edward-, nml ti. j« til >■ I J-.iiuiiii ArniMrong. , u cl o] tl i Charles llmvl.-s m'lll \\ I lel .-inn n!' .Mil] damng Mr. Gray, uf Willi to lth 1 Mi Coleman Phillip*, an It tl ] 1 ' till', and .Mr. I'. 1. Jl II to tl II l'omUlUt. Tho statement of I to tll ttl c | plaintiff was emplo II II If i I I as hon.-ekrcpor, an J II 1 i I I daughter, re-idcl ii 1 1 at \\ i 1 a l;ol;c. it was nlleg I tl t on I)c onl l «l last the dofcndai t tlo ]ic ei c t plaintiff's daughter lot i o ot tl o defendant, lalsclv i 1 n Ic o 1 [>OnC and published tlip f 110 g 1 M Armstrong, hnvp yo i I »i t 1 l „ n money? .I've been i i < ai I .sump has roup (o-il II pll Ift i plied, "If 1 thouglt tl t oi tlo It J had taken your mm t 1 11 t t in your house a day.' \\ ho ppoitl odo I'eiidnut falsely an I nil wo h uilol "Well, I do. I foot I e tot tl or „11 one. You can pack up >ou tl ngs id So ta-morruiv." In a second cause uf action the plaintiff alleged that on January 2. at Waihakeke, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoko and published to Andrew M'Grogor (a police constable) the words: "On Sunday morning I counted my money. There was ten shillings and sevenpence in. the morning; in the. evenin.!,' there, was only seven and six. I charged her, saying 1 had counted my money, and she said, (So you count your money!' And 1 said, 'Yes.' .1 had "previously missed sixteen shillings at various times, making altogether nineteen and a penny. I didn't suspect Doris or Leslie. I had given my son Willie ton shillings a week or so previous. The boy spent two shillings and sixpence, and put seven shillings and sixpence in his purse. Ho went up town the next Saturday night to pay Hughes a shilling, and found nothing in his purse. So one concluded that she (meaning the plaintiff) was the thief. Sho was the only person in tho house that Sunday."

On the first cause of action the plaintiff claimed £2r,\ damages, and on the second cause of action .£250 damages. For the defence, it was denied that defendant had spoken or published the words tot out in the statement of claim. It was further alleged that the words said to have been used were incapable of the meanings attributed to them, or of any other defamatory meaning; and if it were proved that the words complained of were spoken and published, they were spoken and published bona fide, and in (ho honest belief that the facts so stated were true, and without malice, and were privileged.

Scvnral witiirssos having Ijeen heard, Jlr. Hollings applied for a non-suit ou tlip grounds that the statements alleged to liavo bpr,n mailp were privileged. His Honor declined to lion-suit, but reserved decision ou tho question of privilege. After witnesses for the defence had tieen hoard, tlio jury retired, ontl returned in half an hour with a verdict for plaintiff, to whom they awarded XIOO damages. His Honour did not enter nn judgment, but reserved the case for further consideration in 'Wellington, whore the question of privilege raised by counsel for the defence will be argued on a dato to be fixed.

DIVORCE. In the Supreme Court this morning his Honour Justice Edwards granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months, in a ease in which Ethel Hay Emslio sued for divorce from her husband, Wilfred \V. Emslie. The parties had lived together at Rongomai, in ihe Forty Milo Bush, and the respondent left his wife and had not been mainlaining her for some years. The respondent did not appear.