DISTRICT COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 18 May 1907, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

I ALLEGED SLANDER. CLAIM FOR £IOO DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. Before District Judge Hasclden yesterday, Mrs Khoda Jane Carmont, wife of T. J. A. Carmont, c.i(b-driver, New Plymouth, brought action against Miss Annie Nicoll, also of New Plymouth, for £IOO damages for alleged defamation. The statement of claim alleged that on or ajjout January l.iih, 1!107, defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff to Miss Annie Kirkpatrick the following words: —"I have been t-jkl that shj (aieaaing tin: plaintiff) is not married to .Mi Carmont, but is- only living with him, meaning thereby that plaintiff was int-

chaste and living in adultery. Mr J. E. Wilson (Wilson and Grey) appeared for claimant, and Mr Kerr, with Mr Hughes, for defendant. The defence was a general denial • : the statement of claim. Defendant stated that she is the occupier of a house in Brougham street, where sac 1.-ts 1 furnished rooms. In December last plaintill' and her husband rented a bedroom in the defendant's house, and Miss Sarah Kilpatrick also rented a bedroom there. On or about the 15th day of January last plaintill in consequence of information eonveyci to her for the purpo e of putting her upon enquiry, said to tbi' said Saran Kilpatrick: "I have heard this afternoon that there are doubts about Mr» ' Carmont being married, and 1 shall enquire into it before we walk out with her again, but 1 do not believe there is any truth in it," and Sarah Kilpatrick also then said that sue did not bs- i lieve there was any truth in it. The

[statement of defence proceeded: "On [ the following day the defendant for the sake of her own reputation and the reputation of her house made enquiry as to the truth of the suggestion that the plaintiff was not a married woman, and she being satisfied that there was no truth in the said suggestion on the same day informed Sarali Kilpatrick that there was no truth "in it. The plaintiff thereafter continued to reside in the defendant's house. The statement made by the defendant to Sarah Kilpatrick was made bona fide and without malice and on a privileged occasion."

Sarah Kilpatrick said she had liveil at Miss Nicoll's home. She and Miss Nieholl were walking along Devon street one evening about January 15, | when Miss Nieholl said she had been told that Mrs Carmont was not married to Mr Carmont, and she was not any class, and she (Miss Nieoll) did not iike to be seen out with her. One evening later Miss Nieoll said to witness that she had been enquiring about Mrs Cannont's character and had found that h»r former statement was untrue, and witness thought about the matter for a week or two and decided that, as the statement ha(i reached her ears, she had better tell Mrs Carmont of it. On Saturday morning, February flth, witness, Mrs Carmont and Mis s Nieoll met. In reply to a question Miss Nieholl said: "Yes; I know I told you that I had heard Mrs Carmont was not married and was only living with Mr Carmont, and that I didn't like to be seen and out with her, as I didn't think she was any class;' Mrs Carmont said she would make those who (hail made the statement prove their words. Miss Nieholl refused to say who had told her this.

Cross-examined by Mr Kerr Miss Kilpatrick said she liad known Miss Nieoll far many years. Had lived with Miss Nieoll from aiout December 7th to February 2. For about a month of that time Mr and Mrs Carmont had also been lbdgers at Miss Nicholl's house. AVhen Miss Nieoll had mentioned to witness the doubt as to Mrs Carmont's being married witness said she didn't believe it. Miss Nieoll did not say: "And I don't believe it either.'' if Miss Nieoll said she had made that statement witness would contradict lier. There had been a slight disagreement between witness and Mis* Nieoll.

The Judge suggested that the counsel might make the suggestions to him that the whole matter, would lm* been dropped had not Miss Kilpatrick fanned it into a flame.

Mrs Carmont (the claimant) said Miss Kilpatrick had repeated to her Miss Nicoll's alleged st.-.fceraent. She later on spoke to Mi-s. Nieoll concerning it and she replied: "I know I t:>hl Sarah I have lieard that you were not married to Mr Carmont; that you were only living with him and that yon were no class." Claimant then a-k----ed her who told her but she would not answer. In the evening her lin-band and claimant went to Miss Nieholl an.l asked her what slu meant by saying this, and demanding the name of the party who told her. Sue replied she would stick to principles and would not tdl who her informant was. A lawyer was afterwards consulted.

To Mr Kerr: She left Miss Nicoll's place as soon as she could; she hail difficulty in jetting a house. When living with Mies Nieoll there were occasions when she went out for walks with defendant. Both were on good terms up to the time Miss Kilpatrick told her about the statement made by Miss Nieoll concerning claimant. She did not remember that whilst at Miss Nicoll's she had an illness and could not wear her wedding ring.

Thomas J. A Carmonl, claimant's husband, also gave evidence in support of the claim. He hud not promised Miss Nieoll that he would show her their marriage certificate. The matter might have been mentioned by his wife. It was a fact that he subsequently got a copy of their marriage certificate from Wellington. Joseph Whitaker gave evidence as to Miss Nieoll coming into his shop and speaking to him respecting Mrs C'armont. He had told her that so far as he knew Mrs Carnront was as much married as he (witnos-) was. Miss Nicholl answered that she was glad witness could speak so favorably of her as she was anxious about her boarders being respectable. Mr Kerr, in outlining the defence, submilted that as a boardinghouse keeper Miss Nieoll was justified and privileged in making the enquiries she did regarding the doubt cast on the respectability of her tenants or boarders. There was no spite or malice shown towards claimant. A declaration of suspicion was not n ground for a slander action. He quoted authorities in support of this contention. Defendant, Miss Nieoll. gave evidence in accordance with her statement of defence. After the interview with Mrs. C'armont, at which the statements bad been divulged, Mrs. f'armont had asked witness whether it was necessary for her to leave the house. Witness had replied in the negative. Mrs. ('armont had afterwards said she was sorry she had placed the matter in the hands of .Messrs Wilson and (trey, and that her solicitors had advised her to continue the case; otherwise'she would not do so.

Mr. Hughes, in argument for the .K fence. Bald tills litigation would never have arisen had it not been for the officious behavior of Miss Kilpatriek. Jle argued at some length that defendant's statement was not defamatory and was made under circumstances of privile,;". He also contended that there had lichm no actual damage to plaintilfs reputation, since the matter had been cleared up in Mrs. Canuout's favor. .Mr. Wilson summed up the argument-' for plaintiff. Judge Hazelden. interrupting, said lie would find that the words alleged in the statement of claim had been spoken. Mr. Wilson then argued against tic | assumption of privilege. He submitted that it must be shown that plaintirt and defendant had both a personal interest in the statement :nade. Mere gossip (was not privileged. His Honor, in summing up. se.H lie would find nn the facts that Miss Xicoll had acted in perfect good faith. She had made justifiable inquiries and bavin" satisfied herself had communicated to"Miss Kilpatriek the fact, that she lial found the statement to be untrue. The matter would have remained a secret between Miss Xicoll and Miss Kilpalivk had not Miss Kilpatriek communicated it to Mrs. Camiont. It was Miss Kilpatriek who was most to blame in th> matter. As the allegation of malice had iheen absolutelv negatived he must I'md ! jiid'.inent for defendant. He added, however, that Mrs. Carmonl had had the greater inducement to brine; the action.

Though she had not gained judgment for damage.!, her character had been vindicated. It was mentioned in the statement of defence that plaintiff being without nij&ins, defendant would not be [*ble t< yg|s^»«sts< It would-be an

act of grace on the part of Miss Nieoll if she would waive any claim for costs. Miss Nicoll agreed to do so, and it was settled that each party should pay their own costs. i