District Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 171, 21 January 1897, Page 2

District Court.

PALMERSTON— WEDNESDAY. (Before District Judge Kettle.) ALLEGED SLANDKR. The case of the Rev. Innes-Jones v. Jane Evans was continued. Mr Skerretfc appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. S. Fitzherbert for defendant. The whole of the morning was occupied by counsels' address to the jury during which the whole of the evidence was reviewed. His Honor, in addressing the jury, said the issues of the case were pure facts, in regard to which counsel on both sides had thoroughly criticised and analysed the evidence. The case was one of slander, and there were two counts in the claim. Defendant was charged with having accused plaintiff in her statement to Mr Goodbebero, one of the churchwardens, of making improper proposals to her on sth July (Sunday evening) in the kitchen of his house, ; and with having repeated that accusa- | tion to Miss Linton. The first question which the jury would have to decide was: Did the defendant make this accusation as alleged ? Upon this point his Honor thought the jury would have no difficulty m deciding, as it was prac- | tically admitted that the defendant had I in her conversation with those people, I definitely accused plaintiff of having | made such improper proposals to her. The defendant had also put on re- | cord a plea justifying what she bad said, and alleging that her accusation was true in substance and fact. The onus of proof of these issues rested upon the plaintiff, and the whole of the facts were before the jury. The main and all important issue in the case was that raised on the defendant's plea of justification. Defendant had set up a plea that the accusation made by her was true. The onus of proof of that issue rested on the defendant and not on the plaintiff. The latter was Dot called upon to disprove the accusation — the onus of proof was on defendant, who was bound to satisfy them beyond reasonable doubt, and by conclusive testimony, thst the plaintiff bad been puilty of the gross conduct attributed to him. In actions of breach of promise of marriage, seduction, and maintenance cases, the law required that the plaintiff's or informant's evidence should be corroborated in some material particular— that was the statute law of the country. The charge made by her against the plaintiff was a serious one, and if found to be true, the consequences to him would no doubt be most disastrous. The jury ought, therefore, to be absolutely confident that the defendant's evidence was throughout quite reliable and established to their entire satisfaction the accusation which she had made. If they thought the evidence was evenly balanced, and that it was impossible to say on which side the truth lay, it would be their duty to give a verdict on the main issue in favor of the plaintiff, because, as already stated, the onus of proof of this issue rested on the defendant. If they were satisfied that the defendant's statement was substantially true — that she was cot mistaken in the construction which she placed upon the conversation which she admittedly bad with the plaintiff -it would be their duty to bring in a verdict in her favor. It was insinuated that although in the letter which her solicitor (Mr Beade) wrote to the plaintiff an apology and not money was demanded, if she bad sue* ceeded in extracting a written apology from the plaintiff, she would have used it afterwards for the purpose of obtaining money from him. It was also urged that the defendant entirely misunderstood the nature and meaning of the defendant's words, and that being probably a woman of superseneitive or hysterical nature, had placed a wrong construction upon what had been said to her, and had afterwards in her statements to Mr Goodbehere, to Miss Linton and in the witness box given an exaggerated and colored meaning to the plaintiffs words. The defendant had given a detailed account of the whole of the conversation from her point of view, and the plaintiff, on the other band had given his account. It was admitted by both that a conversation bad taken place between them on the occasion referred to, and that the plaintiff did refer to the defendant's approaching marriage, but he absolutely repudiated having said anything to her of an immoral or improper nature. It was therefore for the jury to decide between these conflicting statements- His Honor then referred to correspondence on the case. Plaintiff had claimed the nominal sum of £5 on each count, and they would probably consider that sum not excessive if they found tbe issues in favour of plaintiff. His Honor also referred to the issues dealing with the defendant's honesty of belief in the statement made by her to Mr Goodbehere. These issues were necessary owing to her conversation with Mr Goodbehere being admit* tedly privileged. In conclusion His Honor reminded them that their duty was, fearlessly and in accordance with the oath they bad taken, to record a true verdict according to evidence. Tbe jury then retired, and after a deliberation of half an hour returned a verdict for tbe plaintiff on all the issues, which, together with their answers, aro as follows : — (1) Did tbe defendant tell Mr Goodbehere that the plaintiff had made improper proposals to her ? — Yes. (2) Did she honestly believe that tbe plaintiff bad made such improper proposals to her?— No. (3) If not, was she actuated by malico '?— Yes. (4) Did the defendant tell Annie Yoss and Nellie Linton that the plaintiff had made improper proposals to the defendant as alleged ? — Yes. (5) Did the plaintiff make improper proposals to tbe defendant as alleged ?— No. (6) What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant ? — Tbe amount claimed, viz., £5 on each of the two counts. — Standart*' _______