District Court.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 25 July 1891, Page 3

District Court.

PATOERSTON NORTH. , '— — ■ — • .» ■. (Before] District Judge Kettle.) FR.YSER JjUTO' WIFE~V. ImIRIE AND i . Wife. In giving judgment in this case his Honor" j said this was an action to recover damages from the defendants on Recount of a certain slander against the character and good fame of Mrs. Fraser, which was spoken by the wife pi the defendant Imirie. The defendants first of all deny that the slander was published, and as an alternative they plead justification, that the words alleged to have been published were true. The defendants had certainly failed to prove the truth of ,the sjander, and at the end of their baste' their counsel -had >. intimated that the plea would.be withr drawn, as he considered his opponent had proved the contrary. The only plea/ therefore remaining to be considered was whether publication had been prbyed. To his Honor that ' had been clear and conclusive and the worjs. fl u£ed bore and were intended.'^b, convey the . meaning" assigned to them by the plaintiff, although the evidence adduced satis-' fied him' that the accusation was entirely 'and unfounded. The. only qu^s|iontQ' consider was what damages, .^hj^. plaintiff was entitled to recover^ ' The evidence showed -that the, author of the slander had told Mistf.jj^e^: ,and|She had told' it jto Mrajmivie^j^yh,© admitted had made it her (business to w£rn , hey; neighbours against Mrs Fraser, as ,-. a . woman whowa& not fit to be assbcia;te!a(witfr l r and she said she made: them fully understand the purport and ""meaning of the accusatipn. To his mind the course Mrs Imirie should have taken under the circumstances was to order the author of the slander off her premises and) forbid him to enter her doors again, and then to go to Mrs Fraser and tell her all about it. As it was her conduct was difficult to understand. Wh^n ihe case commenced the ac« cusation was renewed by the setting up of a plea of justification, relying Cjn ,i«he evidence of Murray to prove trjue. .The fiUng of this plea -was; sufficient to prove the husb^ad^ > complicity in the slander, tfhe .bringing forward of such a plea and the withdrawing it afterwards was v the strongest evidence possible to pbtain of malice, and such a course pnJy^S^Wkvated the offence, 'No 'damages the Court could award would be sufficient recompense for ' ''the base slander circulated, for some reason it wss difficult to understand

the jurisdiction cf the Court was I limited to £100. He was satisfied that the words uttered by Mrs Imirie w;ifi a most dastardly, cruel, and malicious attack, and he was bound to give judgment lor the full amount claimed", HIOO, and costs. — Standard