THE EDITOR OF " SOCIETY ” AND MR. CROCKER.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2644, 28 September 1882, Page 3

THE EDITOR OF " SOCIETY ” AND MR. CROCKER.

At the Besidant Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr Crocker was sued by Mr editor of “ Society," for £SI Is, for damages sustained by an assault on plaintiff in Colombo street on September 21st. Defendant objected to some paragraphs which appeared in a number cf “Society,” and wnieh he considered saw intended to apply in an offensive manner to Mrs Crocker, milliner, of High street, and her employes. He took an opportunity of meeting plaintiff on tho evening of the date and at tho place named. He demanded an apology. Plaintiff refused it, upon which defendant proceeded to horsewhip plaintiff, who, though energetically resisting, received material damage. The hat he was wearing, which had cost one guinea, was spoiled. A out from the whip discoloured hi* orm j the blood rushing to his head, in the excitement, suffused his eyes, which had been bloodshot ever since, and altogether his sufferings bad been considerable. In hi* examination plaintiff said he considered t- at the paragraphs which had been read contained nothing offensive to defendant or bis relatives, and although he wrote the paragraphs h m«olt from information received, he bad no idea to whom they referred. He declined to name hi* informant, but on being pressed stated that Mr Peter Prank Jacobsen had furnished him with the material. He claimed £2O as a solatium for the battery he had received, and £1 la tho price of a hat. Mr Jacobsen told him that a man referred to os “ moleskins ” in the paragraphs was rosily a ms* named Mole, Moule, or Mould employed in the wholesale establishment also referred to in the paragraphs. Subsequently in cross-examination. l£r Jacobsen, who had been called for the plaintiff said this person Moleskins was an employe in Edwards, Bennett and Co.’s. The story he had told to Mr Izett had been obtained from somebody else. For the defence B. J. Crocker stated that hi* wife kept a millinery establishment opposite Bdwarde, Bennett and Co. He had read the paragraphs in “Society,” and considered they referred to his wife’s establishment. He consulted his solicitor, who wrote a letter to the editor asking for an apology. Witness had, before thoparagraphing, refused to advertise in “ Society.” One of the female employes had been taken away by her parents in consequence of the paragraphs. The apology demanded was refused, and defendant admitted that he had in fact horsewhipped Mr Isett, who in retaliation strnok him, though the blow* had taken but little effect. A person named Mole or Mold, who had been subpoenaed by the defendant, did not appear when called. After counsel had addressed the Court hi* Worship said that though there was no doubt thatdefendant had committed an assault, yet the assault appeared not to have been of a ve~y serions character, and there had been osn sza provocation. Judgment was given for plaintiff, damages £5, with costa of Court, and expenses of two witnesses, 18*.