VILLAGE SLANDER

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9418, 14 April 1909, Page 7

VILLAGE SLANDER

The extraordinary slander case in which it was alleged that the plaintiff was the father of an illegitimate child of a girl named King came to an end at Leeds Assizes recently with a verdict for heavy damages. . It was announced that the' terms agreed upon were that there should be a verdict, by consent, for £2OO damages, coupled with an indemnity to be given by the defendants of all costs, charges and expenses incurred in the action. Defendants, Mr John Richardson (solicitor) and his wife would make a public apology and withdrawal of the slander which Mrs Richardson had been tbe means of circulating in the village of Sowerby with regard to Mr John Thomas Hansell, the plaintiff. There wonld also be an injunction. Counsel for the. defence stated that Mrs Richardson unfortunately did repeat the slanderous statements. She now desired to state in the frankest possible way that she was satisfied that there was no foundation for any of the statements which had been made. That being so, she apologised for having been the means of circulating them, and expressed her deep regret to Mr Hansell for any pain, inconvenience or discomfort he might have suffered in consequence. Mr Justice A. T. Lawrence, addressing the jury, said that the, parties had acted wisely. It bad been a very painful case to investigate and to watch the extraordinary persistence with which tbe’scandal had permeated the village of Sowerby. “I hope, ’’continued his lordship, “that these women who have taken, part in this very discreditable gossip will learn a lesson by the result of this case. It is very deplorable to think that they can have gone bn for months circulating this scandal, and there is not a single one of them who ever went and showed the slightest sympathy or mercy or chanty to that poor girl who: Was the subject of their gossip—one of the most degrading things that I have known, to happen in the history of any community.” The jury returned a verdict for tpe plaintiff, as directed.