A LIBEL CASE.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2672, 9 September 1871, Page 2

A LIBEL CASE.

The action of libel—W. F. Dixon v. For* syth— in which the plaintiff claimed LIOOO damages from the defendant, for having pub* lished an alleged libel against the plaintiff in the Herald of the Oth, was heard in the Melbourne County -Court a few days ago. The plaintiff was well-known in Dunedin, and the alleged libel was the publication ot the report of a police court case, in which he was sued by his wife for maintenance ; and the report complained of was subsequently transferred into the columns of the Evening Star. The defence to the action was that the libel complained of was true in Substance, and from the cross-examination of the plaintiff himself, together with the evidence of the witnesses called for the defence, such a strong case was made out for the defendant that the jury, after a retirement of only a few minutes, returned a verdict in his favor on both the points remitted to them—namely, whether the report was a correct account of what occurred at the Police Court, and whether the facts contained in the alleged libel were true in substance, as the defendant had pleaded. In the course of his examination Dixon denied having ever said that he had given hij wife sufficient provocation to get a divorce if she chose to apply for one. Never committed adultery during the time he was with ;his wife. Told Smith his wife was jealous about anyone he spoke to. Had no recollection of telling Smith she was jealous of Miss Proud. Never told Smith that in the event of getting a divorce he would marry Miss Proud. She (Miss Proud) was in New Zealand then. [Witness was examined at considerable length as to his relations with Miss Proud. He admitted having kissed her many times, sometimes in the presence of his wife. He also admitted having visited her in her bedroom while she was in bed, in the presence of other persons, and that she had sat on his knee.] He hr cl not seen his wife since she was at the police court in June. When he was in Ballarat his wife threatened to take proceeding's against him for maintenance. He then ppomispd fa allow her 30s per week, and he did so. Could not say how long {he allowed her 30s per week. Never told Smith, the lawyer’s clerk, that his wife was too fond of hi™, or too spoony on him.

Mrs Youlden, the wife of Mr Youlden, of Hawthorn, the executor of the will of the late Mr Proud, was called. She said that on. the Sunday after Mr Proud’s funeral Mr Dixon was at their house. After dinner was over Dixon said he was ill, and went up-stairs to the children’s bedroom. During the afternoon she saw Mr Dixon in the children’s bedroom lying on one of the beds, and Miss Proud was then in the same bedroom. Sbe asked Miss Proud to come with her into her bedroom, as there was plenty of room for two on the bed. Miss Proud declined to do so, and witness left her ; but witness’s daughter was then witii Mr Dixon and Miss Proud, and had been in the room before witne ?s went there. Witness then left them and went to her own bedroom. When she got up again she weut to the servant’s bedroom, which room was also .usually occupied by Miss Proud. The door of that room was shut to, but on opening if she found Mr Dixon and Miss Proud in it apparently asleep,’ one of them being oh one bed ap'd the other oh another bed in the room. 11 • ' Mr Malcolm B. Stark, who was called, said he wrote the report which appeared in the Herald. He was in court wheu the case was heard, and he considered the report a fair and correct one. Air. E. H. Smith, a law clerk, stated that at Ballarat Dixon told him he wanted his wife to consent to a divorce. He said his wife was too spooney on him, and if he copld get a divorce he would marry Miss Proud. Witness told him he could not get a divorce by consent or collusion, and tried all he could to get him to live with his wife, which he was not doing then. He said he could give his , wife plenty of evidence of his infidelity which she could obtain a divorce from, but when witness saw her on the subject she said a divorce was just" what he wanted, and she would not consent to one; that all she wanted hfm to do was to treatjher properly. Witness was awar-J that they had lived unhappily together as both of them had told him 30. Dixon sens witness to Mrs iJixon on the subject bf 'tho divorce. He 1 ’ weilt to the wife merely in the character of a friend—there was no payment in the case.

Edwin Yonlden, executor of the will of the late Mr Proud, said Mr Dixon went to his house at Hawthorn with Miss Proud, wlioin he brought from New' Zealand. Mf |?roud on the day previous had told witness that he thought' he abqify to die, and oil phe night of the dqy whgu Dixpu bftd arrived tlierp he tojd him that Mr Proud did pot wish him to stop there. Mr Proud had told that he wished Dixon to be sent about his business, for if he got hold of his .(Proud’s) money when he was dead, he would speculate with it and spend it al; for her. He wished everything between his daughter and Dixon to be put a stop to. Witness did not allow Dixon tojstop in bis house for his meals, and ho went over to the Red Lun Hotel, opposite, for thorn. In about 10 days alter Mr Proud died Miss Proud and Dixon went away. Mr Proud’s wish was that Miss Proud should be sent away by the first good

ship that went to England. Mr Proud died on the Ist of February. Before Mr Proud died Dixon wont to New Zealand on s'-me business for Mr Proud. The latter afterwards said he was sorry he had sent Dixon. Mr Proud never told witness that ho wished Dixon to bring his daughter back from New Zealand. Dixon, he said, had pleaded to him to be sent to Zealand. Mr Proud told him that if the business in New Zealand was all settled, Miss Proud would return to gether, and he (Mr Proud) paid their passages to this colony. His Honor, in summing up, said that in newspaper reporting it was not imperative that a report should bo vo'hathn, but it was sufficient if it were a fair account of what took place, and conveyed such an impression as would have been caused on the minds of bystanders who heard the evidence. The jury would, therefore consider whether the report was a fair and truthful account of what took place in the court; and, in the second place, whether what was stated was true in substance and in fact. The jury returncl a verdict for defendant on both points put to them by the judge.