A SLANDER CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 16 April 1926, Page 1

A SLANDER CASE

RETRIAL REFUSED. WELLINGTON, April 14. The reserved judgment of his Honour Air Justice Sim on the application hy the plaintiff for judgment and a motion by the defendant for judgment in her favour, or in the alternative, for a new trial, in the case of Eleainor Heap, plaintiff, and Elizabeth Green, defendant, in which plaintiff claimed to recover £BOO from the, defendant as damages for slander, tried before a jury on A larch IStli, was.given in the Supreme Court yesterday. The jury found that the statements were defamatory; that the defendant did not honestly believe that the statements made were true, and that to make them was her duty; and that she was actuated by malice; and found damages for plaintiff of £250. “The ground on which the defendant asks for judgment in her favour,” says His Honour, “ is that the occasions on which the words complained j of were spoken were privileged occa- t sions, and that there was no evidence j of malice on the part of the defend- g ant. . . The jury found that she did \ not honestly believe them to he true, f and that finding disposes of her rlair to privilege. It is unnecessary, tin 10-1 lore, to consider the question whether j or not there was any other evidence 1 of nvilicc, anil the defendant’s motion f for judgment must he dismissed. I.

“ I proceed, now, to consider the defendant's application for a new trial. File first ground put forward is that lie plaintiff was allowed to amend tho Jatement of claim at the close of her ■a so by substituting for tho words set nit in paragraph 2 the words deposed 0 by Mr Richards. The defendant, it s said, was taken In- surprise hy this 1 mend meat and was unable at tlie nonwiit 10 determine whether to apply for any amendment of tlie statement if defence justifying the publication .if the words denosed to.

“ The defendant was not prejudiced, 1 think, hy the amendment, because the words deposed to by Mr Richards amounted to a charge of dishonesty against the plaintiff', and would convey to the mind of a reasonable man practically the same meaning as tho words set out in the statement of efaim. . . Counsel for the defendant did not apply, as he might have done, for an adjournment to enable him to plead justification, but elected to go on with the defendant’s case, and cannot now complain of what was done at the trial. . . Tlie defendant did set up a plea of justification, but this was struck out by Air Justice Alpers on the application of tlie plaintiff! as not being in proper form. The defendant did not venture to plead justification, although she might have done so. . . T am satisfied that the defendant did not suffer any prejudice by the course taken at the trial, and her real grievance is that the jury did not believe her evidence. It was for the jury to say whether they believed her 01* not. . . The result is that the defendant’s motion is dismissed with costs £7 7s. and judgment is given for the plaintiff for £250, with' costs according to scale and disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed % the Registrar.” At the hearing Air A. Dunn appeared for the plaintiff, and All- O. C. Maz.engarb for the defendant.