A RISQUE POSTCARD.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 May 1919, Page 4

A RISQUE POSTCARD.

CAUSES LIBEL ACTION. WOMAN PLAINTIFF WINS £IOO

One of those risque postcards was the tangible evidence in a libel case of very .deep interest that has been thresh- 1 ed out at Te Kuiti, with a result in. favour of the plaintiff, a married wo-, man named Nellie Collett, who sued collectively William Heath, farmer, of slakauti, his wife, Priscilla, and their son William, on account of this post-, card that slrs Heath sent her husband. The card was enclosed in an envel-

ope, but upon the address side was written the words: “Hard luck you cannot trust your wife out of your sight.” On the face was a series of pictures intending to show, first, a theatre party of two, then a tete-a-tete supper, then mutual caresses, and finally a couple wheeling a perambulator. All these were entitled “the Cdi’l Question,” and across the face of the girl was written plaintiff’s name, while the man was labelled as If. Hose, who in real life is a married farmer, neighbour of the Colletts.

51 r G. P. Findlay represented the plaintiff, and counsel for the three defendants was 51 r J. D. Vernon. Mr. E, W. Burton S. 51., heard the case in which the plaintiff claimed that because this postcard had been sent to her husband, the happiness of her hoine was broken, she herself was given much mental anguish, And the communication had the effect of greatly injuring her character and reputation. Therefore she claimed £2OO as damages and had brought the action, site asserted, to clear up her reputation in the eyes of her husband.

Counsel for the plaintiff said relations between the two families bad long been strained, and it was contended that slrs Heath herself hail caused the postcard to be sent. slrs Collett, during the absence of her husband in camp, had been living with friends in the somewhat wild district of slokauit,i. She had herself received the letter addressed to her husband, and had given it to hint unopened. Mrs Collett said sVillic Heath, the son, had come to her house to ask if her husband had received the card, and Willie fold her ho posted it, although liis mother had thought of burning it, aud then decided to “let it go for a piece of fun.” Witness denied absolutely that there was the slightest foundation of truth in the allegations on the card, which liad been taken by both herself and her husband to mean that she had been unfaithful to him. 51rs Heath had denied to witness having sent it, but had afterwards admitted the fact.

A Mrs Barlow, friend of the Heaths, told the court she had written the words that had made the card a personal insinuation, but she maintained that she had done so simply as a friend, and because slrs Heath was no scholar, and had not the slightest thought of harm. The card itself originally came from .Miss Gladys Heath. The ovidence of Willie Heath and his mother was rather contradictory, but the statements of the Colletts could not

be .shaken, and after a considerable hearing, the magistrate gave the verdict against the Heath family, saying that in his opinion Mrs Heath was undoubtedly a party to the libel, and since relations between her and Mrs Collett had been strained for eighteen months she had acted with malice in fact, and not merely malice in law. In view of other evidence, the magistrate considered that her treatment of plaintiff for many months had gone close to persecution; he also held that since she had published the libel, she had tried to avoid liability by untrue statements, aud had evidently induced her children to give untrue statements also, which accounted for the diversity of their remarks under cross-examina-tion. Parliament had held that damages wore due to any woman if allegations wei;e made concerning her chastity, although no actual damage had been done. He awarded Mrs Collett £IOO and £24 costs.