SHOCK FOR A WIFE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 962, 3 May 1930, Page 29

SHOCK FOR A WIFE

amazing inscription ON TOMBSTONE WHY LIBEL CASE FAILED A remarkable case, in which a woman sued her husband for libel alleged to be contained in a tombstone inscription, was heard by Mr. Justice Macnagton, at Chester Assizes. Mrs. Edith Maud Crawshay Ralston, -satrman and managing director of , garage company at Ludlow, brought an action against her husband, William Robert Crawshay Ralston, of independent means, for damages for libel contained in an inscription on a tombstone in the churchyard of Llau-jair.yn-Neubwli, Anglesey, which ran as follows: “In loving memory of Jennie, dearlybelored wife of W. R. Crawshay Ralston. of The Bungalow, Valley, who died May 20, 1916.” £25,000 Marriage Settlement As “Jennie" falsely described his wife, an injunction was also brought ordering the defendant to erase the inscription on the tombstone, and also ordering him to correct a false entry contained in the parish register of deaths. Mrs. Ralston also claimed damages for slander. Mr. Trevor Hunter, K.C., for Mrs. Ralston, said the parties were married in 1893 in London, and were now living apart. After the marriage Mr. and Mrs. Ralston lived at Brecon, mixing in the best society. Two children were born. There was a marriage settlement of £25.000. In March, 1599, the wife found it necessary to separate, and it was agreed that the wife should receive £4411 yearly, having the custody of the children. Jlrs Ralston lived at Ludlow, where the commenced a garage business. la June. 1929, Mrs. Crawshay Ralston went to see two friends of hers, the Hon. Lilian Devereux and the Hon. Rosamond Devereux, daughters of Viscount Hereford, at Llandudno, and in consequence of information received she went with these two women, a woman companion, and a chauffeur, to Anglesey. In a churchyard, near which Mr. Crawshay Ralston resided, they found a tombstone with the inscription complained of. It was naturally a startling.thing for any married woman to see such an inscription on a tombstone, and no libel could he worse, as it could be seen by any visitor to the churchya-d. Further, said counsel, it was a libel that inferred that plaintiff was not his wife, nor had ever been. It would be difficult to imagine a more cruel libel. Further investigation of the church register revealed

the" death n of in T e<l 311 eutry a< ; aiU oC Jcnme, wife of W R Crawshay Ralston. nl-dlltiff'lf 3 VCry matter, for fvoi, H* 1 , a married woman separated was at'sLk" Her sood name was an , d the reason of action ri^ni th S S . he should Publicly be put Sta ' tus aud that of her sons publicly confirmed. It was a her sons - and might have imsbfnd d“ed° n mheritance "’hen the

Ralston's solicitor xvrote to in?. ~e . elUla 'i t askin £ him to erase the ll?? !? 1 .° m the tombstone, and also the entry in the register, as they wif!? ly ln ' pa ted that she was not his xvife, and that her two sons were not legitimate. The husband wrote refusing to do so, and action was then taken. A fortnight ago Mr. Ralston had removed the inscription from the tombstone, and also promised to erase the entry.

During a long legal argument, defendant s counsel ’said the question whether the, plaintiff was defendant’s wife was never raised. He argued that under the circumstances the wife had no right of action.

Mr. Justice McNaghton said the action was not maintainable in law because of the provisions of tile Married Woman’s Property Act, which did not allow a wife to bring an action against her husband unless for protection and security of her separate estate.

His Lordship and the Imputation His Lordship, in the course of his judgment., said that so far as the case concerned whether plaintiff sustained any damage through the alleged libel, it rested upon the fact that she owned the majority of the shares in the Temeside Garago and was chairman and managing director of the company, which constituted her a trader. lie tins Lordship) had considerable doubts xvhether the imputation made upon her by the inscription on the tombstone was an imputation which affected her credit or character in her trade. In his opinion it did not, and therefore, so lar as that being a ground for the maintenance of the action, it failed.

Xo one, from first to last, had ever raised any question in regard to the fact that from 1.893 to the present time plaintiff had always been, and still was, the lawful wife of the defendant. Therefore he came to the conclusion that the action for damages could not be maintained. There was a further claim for a declaration that the plaintiff was, and is, the lawful wife of the defendant, at all times material to the action hut, as lie had already said, there had never been any question, except the description on the tombstone, that from 1893 to the present plaintiff was the wife of the defendant. Defendant had admitted that he caused the inscription to be put on the tombstone, but now that inscription on the tombstone had been altered so as to erase the statement that the

deceased woman was the wife of defendant, and he understood that defendant had no objection to making a similar alteration in the register of deaths. Under those circumstances, no relief would be given in regard to that matter. Agreement Between the Parties It was agreed, said his Lordship, between the parties in the event of there being an appeal by the plaintiff from his judgment, and the Court of Appeal held that the action was maintainable, that the damages should be assessed at £IOO, and he proposed to make an order to that effect. Mr. Austin Jones (for defendant) said in viexv of what the defendant bad done there was no reason why he should be deprived of his costs. The judge said although, under the law, he found that the action, could not be maintained he had no doubt that it could have been maintained in a different form, Mr. Jones: The action xvould have been settled but for their insisting on an injunction, and I therefore ask for costs for the defendant. The Judge: You do not really alter my opinion, and my order as to costs stands.