FAMILY DIFFERENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 280, 29 April 1914, Page 2

FAMILY DIFFERENCE.

ALLHGBD SLANDER.

BY A BBOTHHR-LN-LAW,

Tlie family differences of Cooper liroj., of New Plymouth and fcipotswood, oulmiuated in an action for alander which ocoupied the atte*tion of the Magistrate's Court all day yesterday. Elizabeth Cooper, a married woman, for whom Mr. H. R. Billing appeared, 1 »ued Wheeler Tumber Cooper, her brot'i-er-in-law (Mr. A. H. Johnstone), for £2O damages for a slanderous statement alleged to have been made concerning her by defendant on February 5, IUI4, to William Nichols, assistant bail'ii at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court. Plaintiff stated that in connection with an execution against the three brothers, Xtahols, as assistant bailili went out to her property at tipotswuod. Witness' husband, Jonu 11, W. Cooper, drove the bailili' to Omata, where some paint was seized. On returning to the house witness drove Nichols into New Plymouth with the goods, her husband cycling behind the trap. Witness also drove him to Vvestown, where at D. K. Cooper'i residence, more goods were seized, and taken into an auction mart ;ic New Plymouti. She saw defendant in tho afternoon when driving Mr. Nichols to the mart.

To Mr. Johnstone: During the time; she had known defendant he had always been a quiet man. Bae was a good (leal drier than her husband, who generally consulted her oiv business affairs. She drove Nichols on her husband's .orders. She understood that ob January 22 D. R. Cooper had retired from the partnership, and on February 18 W. T. Cooper had also left it, leaving plaintiff's husband alone in the business. She did not consider her conneotiom with the business had anything to do with her character. No goods were taken from their place at all, but on her husband's orders she drove the plaintiff to another brother's house ,to asaist the bailiff in making cxeoution.

Job* Ueary Wakefield Cooper, husband of the plaintiff, gave similar evidence a* to the seizure of the goods. To Mr. Johnstone: The brothers we: t on friendly terms when they went into partnership in fcovember, 1912. He had sold the gooda which were later seised at Omata, to his brother, but had not been paid for them. His wife had boon very bitter against tho both of his brothers for quite 13 months, but ne considered she had provocation. William Nichols, assistant bailiff at New Plymouth, dotailed the seizure ot the goods at Omata and Wcstown, auJ t ' ie dmes *° " le auction mart. At D. 11. Cooper's house at Westown, he seized only a chair and some paints and materials. On the following day he saw defendant .handling some paints in the auction mart. i'he storoman informed witness that defendant claimed some of the goods and asked what he should do about tliom. Sometime later, when outside the mart defendant said to witness: •You ought to know better, or have more sense, than to drive round the country wita a Witness was angry at asperaioa east upon him and askt'd tor an explanation, but defendant rode away. That was the only occasion on wluch any woman had driven him about a f • not of anvone but plaintiff being referred to by defendant. J.O Mr. Johnstone: There was a lively scene at D. 11. Cooper's house between the MesJamea Cooper. He was not su>-e that the words used referred to plaintiff To Mr. Billing: He said th/v could have leferred to no ono else. Mr. Crooke, ...M., expressed surprise at tins sccmmg inconsistency. This closed tJie case for the plaintiff, or the defence, Mr. Johnstone raised a nonsuit on the grounds that plaint'lf had not proved that the alleged slander referred to plaintiff. More convincing evidence was necessary. He suggested that it was a trumpery case, brought about by the interference of Nichols. ' defendant, m his evidence, said, that I m Ivovcmber, 1912, he went into partnership with his brothers. Subsequent hisi retiring from the firm he was sued', with his brothers, for £37, and goods 4 his were seized as ie first discovered ■ v a visit to the auction mart. Ho hud somV» conversation with in the mart about the goods which he claimed but had no intention of casting aspersions on his sister-in-law's character He hid always avoided her, as be believed s'ie had been the cause of all the friction b*'. tween the brothers. In consequence of several attempted assaults he had ap. poalfid to thfi police. Mr. Crooke, in summing up, said th it tI, tlu ' evidence of Nicho^ The statement, if not intended to dana,?o the plaintiff, was at all events very ndisereet. He made due allowance for had S -l!rf f ewiten ? elrt wiich defendant had oaid be was 18 . H e ftwar(l(K ) ;E5 images aa d £2 S3 costs.