EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTION FOR ALLEGED LIBEL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2656, 11 October 1882, Page 4

EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTION FOR ALLEGED LIBEL.

A respectably attired middle-aged woman, named Julio Richardson, appeared before the Melbourne City Police Court recently in answer to summon* charging her with unlawfully causing to be published in the 11 Age ’ newspaper a libel concerning one Thomas Wolt Kilby. There was a second count of forging the said advertisement. Mr McKean conducted the prosecution, and Mr Craker appeared for the defence. In opening the case, Mr McKean explained that the proceedings arose out of a libel published at the instigation of the defendant in the missing friends column of the “ Age.” The advertisement ran as follows “ Thomas Kilby, better known as Wolf, in tho Australian Distillery, seven years absent from his wife, supposed to be in WilHamstown,—Your child is dead. Communicate at once with your wife to spare further trouble. Mary Kilby, 117 George street, Adelaide. Bth September, 1882.” Ho characterised the action of the defendant os a diabolical and scandalous attempt to injure the character of a respectable commercial man, and the choice of the “Age” ns a medium of advertising was deliberately made on account of the largo circulation enjoyed by that journal, so that tho libel should receive the greatest amount of publicity obtainable in the colony. The first witness called was James Ooonoy, who deposed that ho was in the employ of Mr Webb, news agent, Errol street, Hotham. He recognised the manuscript advertiement produced, which waa left at Mr Webb’s on the evening of the sth inst. by a lady, who was then sitting in the Court. On going down into tho Court witness found he was mistake* in the lady. It was the defendant who was sitting near who tendered the advertisement. Witness subsequently called at tho defendant’s house, at WilHamstown, 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 Mies Seyton. Witness stated that ho hod called in reference to the advertisement which appeared in the missing friend# column of the “Age,” to procure the insertion of which she (defendant) had paid him 4n. 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 hie employer’s shop on the sth instant. She replied in the negative, and added that she had been in Park street, Emerald hill, on tho date named. The defendant, whom witness saw at Williamstown, was the same person who gave him the advertisement. To Mr Oroker—Witness recognised tho defendant both by her dress and feathers. Edith Seyton deposed that the advertisement was given to her by defendant for insertion in tho “Age ” on the 6th September. Thomas Wolf Kilby, commercial traveller, residing at Williamstown, deposed that ho had known the defendant, who resided at Cecil street, WilHamstown, for the last two year*. Daring that period witness had twice had occasion to institute proceedings against her for assaulting his wife. Witness bad been manager of tho Australian Distillery, WilHamstown, for tho 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 wore then called for tho defence, who proved that the defendant was at home in her own house in 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 ease.