ALLEGED LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 5, 1 October 1919, Page 9

ALLEGED LIBEL

THE. ANONYMOUS LETTER CASE

DECISION RESERVED The action, alleging libel, brought by Ernest Henry Meadows and his wife, f,.!}, 1 . 0 Meadows, against Nurse i'rancis W i lis was bet'oro Mr. W. G. liiddell, 0.M.. at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Tho plaintiffs alleged .that the defend-ant-falsely and maliciously wrote and published a letter addresed to the manager of Mncarthy's Brewery, in ' which the male plaintiff was accused of obtaining liquor from the brewery without the knowledse of his employers and of keeping a sly grog-shop. When the man«ser of tho brewery (Mr. Lepper) received tho letter he showed it to Meadows, who instituted proceedings against the defendant. ... Mr. H. J. I '. O'Lenry appeared for the Rlaintiffs, and Mr. A. Gray, K.C., for the defendant. Wilfrid G. Talbot, public .accountant, continuel his evidence as to the similarity, of the writing in the anonymous letter to that of the "proved" handwriting. Evelvn Buchanan, a nurse, who resides witli the plaintiffs, also gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr. Gray: Did you tell Mrs. Meadows that youi believed that Nurse Willis wrote tho letter?—" Yes." - For the defence Mr.: Gray commented on the fact that tho caso was a very extraordinary one.' Tho relations -between the defendant mid tho plaintiffs were undoubtedly strained as a result of Nurso Willis's objection to the plaintiff (jiving a child some beer.' Tho chilli was most improperly; allowed to drink beer, and Miss Willis'would have failed in lier dutv had she not reported the matter. Counsel contended that the evidence called .by tho plaintiffs as to the similarity of the handwriting was Ik,. sound. . , Dorothy Bulkley, a qualified nurse, doine similar work to that of Nurse Willis said that a considerable portion of the writing in a record book alleged to have been kept by Nurso Willis was done by her. To Mr. O'Leary: Witness had never lived with the defendant. " In April, when the anonymous letter was sent, shp" was not in Wellington. The defendant then gave evidence, and Paid she was a,qualified nurse employed by tho Education Department. Witness took a room at plaintiffs' house, Where Bhe resided for about seven months.- Wit-'- • ness had a disagreement with Nurse Buchanan. who was also staying with Mrs. Meadows, and decided to leave. She had also had a difference with' Mrs. Meadows over a little boy, but did not leave the house on bad terms with Mrs. Meadows. . She had complained to Mrs. Meadows about the child being permitted to drink beer. There had never been any cause for Mrs. Meadows to com- , plain of 'witness's conduct. ■ She was * ' subsequently interviewed by Mr. Muniis, \ who accused her of having written the anonymous letter, but she denied the accusation. She subsequently visited the '- office of Mr. Dinnie, and lie also accused her of writing the letter. He showed her several letters, and said they were in her writing. She denied- this, and he then asked , her to pick out tho letters which wero in her writing. She refused to do this, and told Mr'. Dinpio to do it himself. She. denied having' written the anonymous letter produced. She had never disguised her writing for anv purpose—certainly not an 'ulterior one. To Mr. O'Leary: Witness had not seen anvtliing in the house to warrant the statements contained in the anonymous letter. To her mind it was "a. vile concoction on the part of someone," Mr. O'Leary: When you lodged tho. complaint; about the boy was it while you were at the Meadowa's house?— "Yes." You did not write the letter with the deliberate intention of injuring .Mr. and Mrs. Meadows?—"No; I did not." Did you complain of the child's habits at the table?—-' Yes." ■ What was the. cause?—" The child sneezed-over;.the food. I checked -the boy. and Mrs. Meadows resented it." And you did-not write the letter?—"l did not." _ Herbert Philiu Mournnt said that lw had been in the Bank of Now South Wales for twenty-two years, and had had considerable experience in handwriting. He had come to the conclusion that the defendant had not written the anonymous letter. The letter, in his opinion, was written by an uneducated person. Witness was cross-examined at some length on the writing in the anonymous letter and the "proved" hand-writing. This concluded tho case, and His Worship reserved decision..