EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTION EOR ALLEGED LIBEL.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3520, 19 October 1882, Page 4

EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTION EOR ALLEGED LIBEL.

A respectably-attired middle-aged woman, named Julia Richardson, appeared before the Melbourne City Police Court recently in answer to a summons charging her with unlawfully causing to be published in the Age newspaper a libel concerning one Thomas Wolf Kilby. Thero was a second count of forging the said advertisement. Mr M'Kcan conducted the prosecution, and Mr Croker appeared for the defence. In opening tho case Mr M'Kean explained that the proceedings arose out of a libel published at the instigation of the defendent in the ' Missing Eriends ' column of the Age. The advertisement ran as follows : —' Thornae Kilby, better known as Wolf, in the Australian Distillery, seven years absent from his wife, supposed to be in Williamstown—Your child is dead. Communicate at once with your wife to spare further trouble. Mary Kilby, 117 George-street, Adelaide. September 5, 1882." He characterised the action of the defendant as a diabolical and scandalous attempt to injure the character of a respectable commercial man, and the choice of the A ge as a medium of advertising was deliberately made on account of the large circulation enjoyed by that journal, so that the libel should receive the greatest amount of pxiblicity obtainable in the Colony. The first witness called was James Cooney, who deposed that he was in the employ of Mr Webb, news agent, Errol-street, Hotham. He recognised the manuscript apvertisement produced, which was left at Mr Webb's on the evening of the sth mst., by a lady who was then sitting in the Court. On going down into the Court witness found he was mistaken in the lady. It was

tho defendant who was sitting near who tendered the advertisement. Witness subsequently called at defendant's house, at Williamstown, on the 10th inst. He saw the defendant, and identified her as the person who had left the advertisement at his employer's shop on the previous Tuesday. On the same day witness called again at defendant's residence, in company with a young lady named Miss Seyton. Witness stated that he had called in reference to the advertisement which appeared in the ' Missing Friends" column of the Age, to procure the insertion of which she (defendant) hud paid him 4s. The defendant denied all knowledge of the matter. Miss Seyton said to defendant: 'Do you not remember me writing an advertisement for you last week ?' and the defendant replied ' No.' Witness asked defendant if she remembered calling at his employer's shop on the sth instant. She replied in the negative, and added that she had been in Park-street, Emerald Hill, on the date named. The defendant, whom witness saw at Williamston, was the same person who gave him the advertisement. To Mr Croker: Witness recognised the defendant both by her dress and feathers. —Edith Seyton deposed that the advertisement was given to her by defendant for insertion in the Age on the 6th September.— 1 homas Wolf Kilby, commercial traveller, residing at Williamstown, deposed that he had known tho defendant, who resided at Cecilstreet, Williamstown, for the last two years. During that period witness had twice had occasion to institute proceedings against her for assaulting his wife. Witness had been manager of the Australian Distillery, Williamstown, for the last fifteen years. His wife had been absent in Scotland for the last thirteen years. He was the person referred to in the advertisement, which had done him a vast amount of injury.—Two witnesses were then called for the defence, who proved that defendant was at home in her own house at Williamstown until a quarter to seven o'clock on the night, of Tuesday, the sth September last, which was the date upon which the advertisements were alleged to have been tendered by her to the witnesses Cooney and Seyton.—After a brief consultation the Bench dismissed the case.