BROTHERLY LOVE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 73, 22 March 1912, Page 5

BROTHERLY LOVE.

-JUDGE’S STRONG COMMENTS ON A MASTERTON CASE. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. (Par Press Association.! • Masterton, March 21. “This case is, happly, unique- in the Annals of British justice,’’ said Sir John Findlay, counsel, for the olaintiff,, when opening’ a suit at the Supreme Court this afternoon, when ' Emily'Humphries, ; of Clareville, wife of-Frank Humphries, farmer, clanpecl i £600; from- George Walter Kemp toil, farmer, of Clareville, on three causes .of" action-' for alleged slander. ‘‘There has iiev’df been a’siniilar Case iiudSewZea'laiid- Here we have a pitiful spectacle of a brother (defendant) enterin o- a witness-box with a view to damaging his s’ster’s character by accusing her of adultery/. It- was made worse by the brother spreading his sister’s shame broadcast.” Counsel, said malice of the- bitterest kind was it the bottom of the case, in which the plaintiff had been accused by -defendant..(f acts of adultery with one Donald ‘Finlayson, traction enginedriver, in April. 1911, and on .July 22.; .2-1, and ,28. 1911, ' In' her evidence plaintiff Joined that'she had ever committed adultery with Finlayson, who, was a .visitor, to the house occupied by, her and her -husband and children, and by defendant on the nights on which the adultery was alleged. Finlayson had slept in a room either with her son (a boy of seventeen) or with one pf the carpenters who were staying in the house during the whole of July. She occupied the -same room as her husband. Francis James Humphries, husband of the plaintiff, corroborated his wife’s evidence, saying that he never had occasion to complain of his wife’s conduct. Ho did not believe the accusation of adultery. It was imposs’hle for misconduct to take place in the house as alleged. Donald Finlaysom denied that he ever misconducted himself with tiffAlfred Daysh, farrper, of Clnr-s----ville, Norman Wilton, clerk, of Carterton. and Charles Edward Kcmpton, labourer, of Kaiwaiwai, gave evidence of defendant informing them voluntarily as to the alleged adultery of plaint iff and Finlayson. 1 For tbe, defence, George Walter! Kempton, defendant, detailed how he had caught plaintiff and Finlayson misconducting themselves on the dates mentioned. On the_ evening rf Tuly 22, through a crock in the door, ho saw them in the dining-room. He put ,a nail in the crack in’- order to make it larger, so he could see all •over the room. His Honour: Did you ever hear of Peeping Tom? Witness: Yes. Ills Honour: Apparently the day of retribution is over. Continuing, his Honour said to defendant: You made the hole in the door larger so that you could watch your sister at your ease? Defendant: Yes. His Honour: What charming brotherly conduct. Continuing his evidence, defendant said that misconduct took place on this occasion. On Sunday, July 23, he arranged with his brother and a niece to be in a certain spot when lie spoke to Finlayson concerning the misconduct, so that they could hear His Honour: Scotland Yard is lost in you, Mr. Kempton. Continuing, witness said that Finlayson admitted misconduct. Defendant was severely cross-ex-amined by Sir John Findlay, and was still in the box when the Court rose for the day. Two of Kempton's nieces, one thirteen years of age, alleged that they had seen improper conduct through looking through a key bole. Defendant and bis witnesses were severely cross-examined. In summing up. Judge Edwards said that in the whole of his experiences he had never beard of so disgusting a case as of a man oiuloavnnrI nig to"publish the shame of bis sister. j The jury, after a retirement of | nearly four hours, returned w : th a : three-fourths verdict for plaintiff, and i awarded, her £l5O damages. Judgment was entered up accordingly with costs according to scale, and £ls 15s for extra day’s trial, and £3 3s each day for second counsels. ■