LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2540, 14 August 1915, Page 12

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT CHARGE OP DEFAMATORY • LIBEL • GUILTY ON ONE COUNT Defamatory, libel was alleged against Letitia Jane Hood in tho Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). . The charges against accused were that on February 26, 1915, . she did, publish to Thomas o ! Sliea, Roman Catholic Archbishop, a defamatory libel, knowing the same to lie false, concerning one Miss Lily Dalziell, and contained in a letter read to the Court; and, further, that on or about tho date s'ho did publish the said dofamatory libel. The letter was signed Gordon Andrew Martin, author, ctc.

Mr. V. K. Meredith prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. A. Dunn, (counsel assigned l by tho Crown) appeared for tho accused.

When the indictment was read accused pleaded guilty to writing tho letter, but not guilty to knowing tliat it was false. This was taken as a plea of guilty on tho second charge, that of publishing the libel, and not guilty to the charge of knowing that tho statement was false. The Crown decided to proceed with that charge. The Court was cleared during the hearing of t'he case. Mr. Meredith said that the prisoner was charged with publishing a defamatory libel against Miss Dalziell, who had been for a long time a member of tho convont at AVanganui, where she was known under the name of Sister Agnes. As clean-minded men the libol would appear to thein as particularly gross - against any woman, and more so in the case of a woman who had devoted herself to' religion, the care of the sick, and tho teacliing of children. Of all classes of libel the most vicious were those launched under a 110 m dp plume, and the ease in question was one of those. He proposed to givo evidence not only of the letter before the Court, but other letters which accused had written to other persons.

Mr. Dunn objected to this, and asked His Honour to rule that no letters, except that mentioned in the charge, could be referred to. His Honour pointed out that accused had pleaded not guilty to knowing that the letter was libellous. • Other letters might show malico. Other Letters Mentioned. 'Mr. Meredith was allowed to put it that there were other letters which would show that accused knew she was writing falsely. The accused, he said,' had pleaded guilty to one charge, and it was not vindictiveness that compelled them to go on with the other charge. When they had read other letters, and heard the evidence of Detective Mason, they _ would know how accused had gloried in the act. After that they did not consider it wise to allow the case to rest with a plea from accused that she did not know tliat tho statements were false. The Catholic clergy had suffered as tho result of the letters, and they wished the matter cleared up. They know that right-think-ing people would attach no importance to the statements, but there were certain ignorant people who would put some weight on them.

Father D.. H. .Hurley, secretary to Archbishop O'Shea, gave evidence of the receipt of the letter mentioned in the charge, and George Girling Butcher, secretary and , organiser of tho New Zealand Catholic Federation, gave evidence of the Teoeipt of a further letter, addressed to tho president of tho federation, and' containing allegations against tho j>riesthood. The Von, Archdeacon Dovoy, parish priest of St. Anno's, Wellington, read a similar letter. In these it was stated that tho writer was in New Zealand for the purpose of obtaining "copy," and when she wrote her hook the Government would establish inspection of convents. Detective Mason gave evidence that on Juno. 11, in company with Constable Tricklebank, he interviewed the accused, who admitted that she was' Mrs. Hood. Ho asked her to read the letter which was tlie subject of. the charge, and other letters. She replied that they were written by her, and said that the signature, "Gordon Andrew Martin," was her pen name. She said that the contents of the letters were true, and Baid that she was prepared,to prove them-. Further she stated that she had written tho letters to try and have an action taken. On Juno 14 witness received a letter containing cuttings from the "Watchman" and the "Milwaukee Herald," referring to priests. Witness later served accused with two summonses, on which she was convicted. She then said, "This is only a bluff. Wily don't they sue me for criminal libel? They are too cowardly." On July 13 witness served tho papers in connection with tho present charge, and accused repeated that she believed the cliargcs were true, but if they were not a maii na'med Palliser, a builder's foreman at Wanganui, was more ,to blame than her, as he was her informant. She stated that she had written him, but she believed he had cleared out. Miss Dalziell's Position. The Very Rev. Dean Holley, parish priest at Wanganui, said that he believed that it was ton years since Miss Dalziell (Sister Agnes) entered the Wanganui Convent. On five days in the week she walked from Wanganui to Aramoho, a suburb, where sho was teaching. Cross-examined, witness said that tlie slander against Miss Dalziell had bee.n circulated in Wanganui for about three years,' and ho believed that they were uttered in other parts of New Zealand. Her parents were Protestants, and as far as their personal influence went they did all they could to prevent ber entering the convent. John Palliser, builder, Wanganui, denied ever having made statements to accused concerning Miss Dalziell. She was cook for a gang of men under witness's charge on a building contract, but lie never spoke to her alone. Tlio allegations she made to Detective Mason were false. He had read a letter containing similar statements to those contained in the letters produced, and signed "Dan O'Grady." Mr. Meredith said that ho was going to. submit that the letter was written by the accused. He called Detective Mason, who said that he had had experience in examining handwriting. Be had no doubt that all tho letters were written by the same person.

Denis Close, a gardener, to whom the letter signed "Dan O'Grady" was sent, said that accused was employed as a cook at the plaoe ivhoro he worked. She had tpld him thatsho had written cartain stories to "Now Zealand ' Truth" undor the name of "Dan O'Grady." Accused Belloved the Slanders. . This concluded the case for the prosecution. No evidonce was called in defence, but Mr. Dunn addressed the jury. They did not, he said, attempt to support tho truth of the letter, and to publishing it accused had pleased guilty, but the Crown went further and tried to prove that she knew the libel was false. In her own protection it was put forward that she did not know tho' statements wore false when she wrote the letter. She believed she had reasonable grounds for bclioving the statemtmts. , .Ho..submitter! thai." tlie Grown jsiilsa. aajetfKhaG&Jflato .

cused knew tho statements woro falso when she wrote tho letter.

The jury returned after live hours, and stated that they wcro unable to agree. Mr. Meredith said that. it was not proposed to ask for a new trial. Tho charge was taken, not with the idea- of getting a penalty against tho woman, but so that an opportunity would bo given for the evidence to be taken. They had brought the mm concerned and'her father, aud had desired the fullest oross-exa miimtion. His Honour: I did not think further vindication was necessary after the woman had pleaded guilty to the second count. Sentence was deferred till this morning. HARBOUR EMPLOYEES CHARCED. John Cashman and Charles Dempster, two -ex-employees of the Harbour Board, were charged with the theft of various' articles of clothing (travellers' samples), of the total value of £51 4s. Bd., the property of Butterworth. Bros., Dunedin, and, further, with receiving the goods knowing tliem to be stolen property. Both' accused pleaded not guilty. Cashman was represented by Mr. J. J. M'Gra-th, and Dempster by Mr. T. M. Wilford, with Mr. A. H. Hindmash

The case for tho Crown, as outlined by Mr. Meredith, was that the accused were in charge of two sheds on the w'liarvos. On June 3, a holiday, when the sheds were closed, they were looking for one another about 2.30 p.m. Cashman got the key of P shed, on the plea - that he had to put away some waterproofs. Dempster waa there with a motor-cycle and side-car. They had the key for about ten minutes, and then went away. In the evening, and apparently they had been drinking in the meantime, they net with an accident to the motor-cycle. A constable went to investigate the accident in Uarjoribanks Street, and found the articles concerned in the charge lying about. Cashman was unoonscious 011 the road, and Dompster was gathering up some of the goods and putting them in the side-car.

For tho defence, John Casliman gare evidence. He said that he had to open the P shed for some members of the Patriotic Society on Juno 3. About eightf to twelve people went in to decorate a Japaueso tea stall. Ho could not say who locked the shed, but he did not return to it till the afternoon, when he returned some gear that ho had used in connection with tho Carnival. Dempster was with him, and wastot-ako him back to Newtown Park on his motor-cycle. Thoy went to the City Hotel about 3 o'clock and stayed tiiero till after 7 p.m. The motorcycle stood outside during that timo. Accused was sure that nono of tho stolen goods were' in his overcoat or coat pockets before they met with the accident, and he did not see any, in the side-car.

Charles Dempster gave evidence that he was drinking on the day in question, and when ho returned to the P shed in tho afternoon the drink was taking effect. Cashman went into the shed and witness entered _ after a time. He felt inclined, to ho sick. Ho picked up a bundle which lie thought was part Of the Carnival decorations, and must have put' it in his side-car. He had no clear recollection of what took place later. Next morning he found out that Cashman was in the Hospital,_ and ho thought that he had killed him. Ho wanted to take all the blame, but lie know nothing about tlie stolen goods. . After a retirement of two hours the jury found both prisoners guilty. They added a strong recommendation . for mercy on account of the previous good character of the prisoners.

Sentence wa-s deferred till this morning, His Honour intimating that consideration would be given to tho jury's recommendation. ' CIVIL LIST His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) will sit at 10 o'clock on Monday morning to settlo the civil list. The following cases 'have been set down for hearing Before a Common Jury of Twelve. Richardson, M'Cabe and Co., Ltd., v. Wellington City Council, claim for £4752 under a contract; countcr-claim to declare contract void. Maurice Manthel v. Arthur Bolton and others, £501 damages. Fergus Ferguson Munro v. William A. Mowbray, £10,000 damages for alleged libel. _ _ . Margaret Clotilda Gilos v. Henry Wilson M'Dowell, £501 for alleged breach of promise. Joseph Mandel and others v. A. D. Kennedy and-Co., £503, moneys alleged to be due; counter-claim for £700. Kate Emma- Fitzmaurico v. the Public Trustee, £1000 for alleged false re* presentation. . Donald Fraser v. Ellen Nightingale, £520 for injuries received. Beforo a Judge alone, Offioial Assignee v. Patrick Joseph Griffin and Charles Tricklebank and another, £1702, purchase money, and accounts. Rangi Kerehoma v. the District Land Registrar and others, action to sot aside transfers, etc. Thomas Whyte Young and others v. Edward M'Ginty, £244 for goods sold. Herbert Hingley and another v. Richard Keeno, specific performance and £150 special damages. Jane Mary Oruickshank v. Annie Facer, £90 for alleged breach of contract and accounts. Ghong Shee Hoong and another v. Young Sing Kow, dissolution, of partnership and accounts. Charles Clifton Osmond and others v. Dalgety and Co., Ltd., £32 10s., moneys paid on withdrawal commission. IN DIVORCE. Thirteen divorce cases have been set down for hearing as under: — Before a Common Jury of Twelve. William Coleman Ball v. Norah Ball and Norman M'Pherson. Ellen Gear v. James Ernest Gear, Beforo a Judge alone. Thomas Ingerton v. Mary, Ingerton and Charles Toy. Grace Helen Brenrum. v, Frederick Martin Brennan. ■Isabella M'Master v. Hugh M'Master. Arthur Patrick Sweeney •v. Jane Teresa Sweeney. Clarice Norah Outler v. "Alfred Cutler. Kathleen M'Donald v. George M'Donald. Mabel Carrington Hutcheson v. William Gordon Hutcheson. Grace Mary Kittelty v. Henry James Kittelty. Alice Jupp v. Edward Frederick Rancie Jupp. Alfred John Bulliff v. Ellen May Bulliff and William Laurie. Martha Sarah Jane Bradley v. George Henry Bradley.