EASTBOURNE SLANDER CASE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 149, 19 March 1920, Page 8

EASTBOURNE SLANDER CASE

RETURNED- SOLDIERS AT LAW.: A slander- action 'brought by one leturned 6oldier against another was heard vesterday in the Magistrate's Court by Mr. W. G. Riddell. S.M. The plaintiff was John William Elliott, wharfinger, of Rona Bay (for whom Mr. H. F. O'Loary appeared), and the defendant was Henry Baker Tunnicliffe, driver, also of Bona Bay (represented by Mr. P. W. Jackson). The plaintiff claimed .£95 damages for slander alleged to have been littered by the defendant in September last to various persons/'

Mr. -O'Leary said that when the slander was alleged to have been uttered the' plaintiff was engaged to a young girl resident in Rona Bay, and-she- had since become his wife. Tunnicliffe had been a rival of Elliott's for the girl's affections, and'desired to see-Elliott's engagement broken off. 'Rona Bay was a small place, and an'allegation such as was made roon hecauie known, and people" would believe it unless the matter was ventilated in Court. The plaintiff desired to clear his character, and by this action to assure his wife and'her people that there was no. truth in'the statements alleged to hnvo been made by Hie-defendant. The slander.'it was alleged,.had been uttered to various people at.various times. Lucy Mary Brennan stated that the defendant camo to her house and tnld :hCr. that'Elliott, had'suffered from a disease. The plaintiff was engaged to her daughter, and as,.a result of this information the engagement was terminated, but it was later discovered that the allegation was 'untrue, and her daughter had since married tho plaintiff. Several other witnesses-were called, Including the plaintiff. _ The defendant, in his evidence, denied absolutely making anv slanderous statement. He w.ns a friend of-tho plaintiff's, and they'h.id enlisted together. He went to Egypt and the plaintiff went to France. Witness never said that tho plaintiff had 9iifiVed from any disease'. The defondant alleged that the slanderous statement was made by Charles Harris to him. .

In cross-examination witness' said that 0 ' he was not convicted of any offence while on service. Hewas charged with etcalini? and also with receiving stolen property, Thnt was-in 1917. The first chcrgft was withdrawn, and on the second charra he was'acquitted.

, Kate Munro, wife of the foreman oi tho Eastbourne borough, and a -'sister oi -Mrs. Brennan. also gave ; evidence.

; .The Magistrate said 1 that'the weight of evidence was airainst the defendant, who must'lie'held to havi> made the statement in Rent.emher. The damages claimed bv'/rhe jilaintiff were excessive. '• Tho plaintiff was entitled to some damages. and;Fis Worship, fixed the. amount at £15.-He gave judgment for plaintiff for that amount, with costs., •