ALLEGED SLANDER

Hokitika Guardian, 15 March 1926, Page 4

ALLEGED SLANDER

WOMAN GETS £250. AVELLINGT’ON, March 12. A case with many unusual features, in which £BOO damages were claimed for alleged slander, was heard before his Honor Mr Justice Rim and a jury of twelve to-day. The parties were Eleanor Heap, wife of Walter Heap, Wellington, salesman, plaintiff', and Elizabeth Green, married woman, Tinakori Road, sued ill respect ol her separate estate, defendant. Air A. Dunn appeared on behalf of plaintiff and Air 0. C'. Alazengarb for defendant.

Plaintiff' stated that while employed as a saleswoman by Macduff's, ot Cuba Street, defendant falsely and maliciously published concerning Iter a statement to Air Richards, ot Alaedutf's that plaintiff had stolen tobacco, in consequence of which she was summarily dismissed. Oil the same day, December 28, 1925, defendant further stated to plaintiff's husband: ‘‘Stanislaus lias oeen out at night with your wife and misconducted himself with her. He is in .Macduff's every day. seeing your wife, lie takes her home from work every night to Courtney Place.” whereby plaintiff's reputation and character had been greatly injured. Site claimed special damages of £IOO for loss ot employment, £BSO in respect ol the allegations as regards elicit, and £BSO in respect to the allegations regarding adultery, a total of £BOO. Air Dunn, for plaintiff, said the tiefence did not plead justification. The iact of the matter would be shown to tie that defendant was madly jealous regarding Stanislaus, who had been a friend ol hers for Leu years, and made the allegations in spile. The jury hud not to decide whetner the statements were true or not, nor would counsel for the defence be permitted to crossexamine witnesses to prove them true. Defendant saitl that the charges were not true, hut that she believed them true when she made them. Air Ma/.cugarh: No. Ail we say is that defendant made the charges believing them to he true. Air Dunn said that, if defendant believed the statements true she would he privileged. His Honour would direct the jury as to privilege. Assuming that defendant were given the benefit of privilege she would he protected unless it could he proved she was actuated bv malice.

The defence denied publication ol the statements as allegedly made, hut admitted thinking troin intornuition supplied by Vincent Stanislaus that plaintiff was supplying goods belonging to her employer to customers without receiving sufficient payment, and was arranging for Stanislaus to receive goods on plaintiff’s behalf in fraud of her employers. If it were proved that she used such words as alleged they were not spoken maliciously. Tt was denied that plaintiff' lost her employment in some consequence ol the alleged statements. Stanislaus was an old friend of defendant’s and frequently was her guest. Becoming aware of alleged frauds on Alaeduff’s, defendant endeavoured to dissuade Stanislaus from complicity, hut tailing, went to Heap and urged him to speak to plainill' about the matter. Heap declined, and defendant then gave information lo Richards, acting under a sense ot duly to her family and others, ami believing her statements to he true. The words published were only to plaintiff’s husband and to Richards, who each had a duly and an interest in the matter. Defendant pleaded privilege. Detailed evidence regarding the actions and conversations of the parties was taken. AVnlter Heap, husband of plaintiff, in tlu> course ol evidence said Mrs Green had called to see him privately. She said, "Your wife is a thing.” A director of Macduff's, Ltd., said lie had been told that one of the employees was giving parcels over the counter. Airs Heap’s name had been mentioned. I’lainlilf was surprised that he linrl lost faith in tier. He asked her to leave immediately. Vincent Stanislaus said that all the goods lie had obtained at Ihe counter where Mrs Green was serving had been paid tor. Ho had taken a parcel for Mrs Heap. Plaintiff had asked him to call ami lie left some goods for her. Her husband, who was present, had said they had better he careful. Plaint ill' had said there was

no danger. Asked whether be did lint get go,oils without paying full value for them, and if he did not call it thieving, witness said he had been a party to a dishonest action coniniitted by Mrs I leap, lull uas tail a I Idol. After evidence, bis Honour summed up. The jury retired and returned a verdict for plaintiff" for £250.