Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ALLEGED SLANDER CASE

WOMAN PROCEEDS ACAINST

HER BROTHER

FAMILY IXISAGREEMENTS

A case which Sir John Findlay, counsel for the plaintiff, described as "unique in the annals of (British justice in this Dominion," was heard in the Supreme Court at Masterton yesterday, before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards, and a jury of twelve. Emily Humphries, of Olareville, near Carterton., wife of Frank Humphries, of the same place, was the plaintiff, and her brother, George Walter Kempton, of Olareville, the defendant.

Sir John Findlay, K.U., witli mm Mr Maunsell, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Smart, w r th him Mi- Lavery, for the defendant. The following jury was empanelled : —Messrs W. McKenaie (foreman), F. Day, W. A. Kitchen, G-. Sowman, 0. A. Deadman, J. 13. Rue, J. S. J. Alpass, A. C. Morris, A. McKain, W. L. Paul, F. Morton and F. J. Huna. The statement of claim set out that on or about the Bth day of August, \ 1911, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published to one Alfred Daysh, of Clareville, farmer, words implying that the planitiff was guilty of impropriety and unehastity; that at a later date he used similar words to one Norman Wilton, a clerk, of Carterton; and that he also made a statement to a similar effect to one, 'Charles Edward Kempton, of Feath- | erston! The plaintiff alleged that the [ defendant meant, by. his statements, that the plaintiff had committed adultery with the defendant. A sum of £2<X> damages was claimed in respect ; of each of the three causes of action, making together a sum of £6OO. 'For the defence, the use of the iwords complained of was denied; but, if it were proved that they were spoken, then it was alleged that they were spoken bona fide and without malice, and with an honest belief, in their truth, and upon an occasion that was privileged. Mr Smart, after the opening of the ca e, abandoned the defence of privilege. Sir John Findlay opened the case for the plaintiff, and addressed the jury on the facts at considerable I length. Emily May Humphries, wife of Frank Humphries, farmer, at Clareville, deposed that she'was a sister to the defendant, who lived on an adjoining,, farm. Witness, had been 18 I years married, and had seven' children'/ In 1910' witness .and.. ; her ; husband f: wetet^tD : ;'defendan : 't-s:; live.;on; i amagkeemenfc to milk" on shares.; They 'lived? in.defendants hoilse/ together, ; with ; tlie\.defendant: . Emily Kempton, house in March, J,911, to act as secrei tary to the defendant. She was about I sixteen years of age. Witness assistr'ed'in the milking. She had always lived on the best of terms with- her husband. About three and a half years ago, witness made the acquaintance of one John Finlayson. In April, ■l9ll. Finlayson was living .in the house with witness and her hushand. The statement that witness had mis- ' conducted herself with Finlayson in April, or in any other month, was false. In July, five carpenters, werei in the house, and witnes was cooking i for them. On Saturday, July 22nd, | there were a number of people staying ! in the house. On the evening of" that [day, Finlayson came to the house, 'and stent with witness' son. He did | the same thing on the. following night, and on the Monday night witness, thought he skpt with on© of the carpenters. On .Tuesday .Finlayson-left for Masterton, and on Friday he retunned, after liming, had his teeth extracted. There were fourteen persons staying in the house that night.

Witness," with the knowledge of her husband, took some water into Fin-layson'-s room that night to give him a drink. No impropriety whatever, had occurred between witness and Finlayson. Witness and her brother were not on friendly terms. Her brother had charged her husband' with mismanaging the place. Neither witness nor her husband had spoken to her brother since March". In May, her brother threatened her husband with proceedings. Witness had -twice successfully sued her brother, and her brother" had been nonsuited in a case he brought against her husband. Her brother stated that he would ruin them, if it cost him his last shilling. He ■ charged them, with robbing and thieving from him ever since they had been on the place. He said, "It's not you I'm trying to.'get-at, old girl, it's him." The defendant on no occasion charged witness'with impropriety with Finlayson. Witness' daughter gave evidence in an indecent language case brought by the police against her bi'otber. By Mr Smart: Witness and her family' had been on friendly terms with Finlayson for some years. Finlayson made the wlace his home when he was< ! out of woi-k. Witness had met Fin--1 layson at a social. Witness emphatic- ! ally denied impropriety with I inlay son | on any occasion. Witness denied that her brother' had said that unless she stopped telling people about him, he .would tell people of her carrying on with Finlayson. ■,'■■, ■ Donald Finlayson, on oath, denied having committed impropriety in any shape or form with Mis Humphries. He had been on the 'best of terms with Mr Humphries, , arid .the' latter had never- suggested that there had been "any'impropriety"with his wife He knew the" defendant, who had. complained about the way the farm had • -been" worked, but made no .suggestion: of impropriety on the part of-witness with Mrs Humphries. The defendant had asked witness if he had heard a certain reoort about himself and his niece. The defendant told witness ! tilmt he would ruin Humphries. Francis James Humphries, dairy farmer, deposed that he had been married for eighteen years, and he had river, throughout the whole ot

■this period, had the slightest cause to suspect his wife. Differences had arisen between himself and his brotibj" er-in-law (the defendant), and no communication pasv.ee! between them, although they lived in tho same house, excepting by lawyer's letter. Witness had met the defendant in the house of Harry Kempton, and had; there been accused of saying thing* about the defendant. *v7itncss denied having said these things. He was also charged with stealing Harry Kempton's fowls.

Alfred Daysh, of Clareville, deposed to the defendant having told him that he had .suspected Mrs Humphries and Finlayson, and had caught them in the act of committing an impropriety.He also stated that his brother, Harry Kempton, had caught them. Under cross-examination, the witness denied that he was on bad terms with, the defendant, although he had given evidence against him in a certain case. . Norman Wilton, clerk, of Carterton» deposed that the defendant had told him that he saw Mrs Humphries misconduct herself with Finlayson on several occasions. Charles Edward Kempton, farm labourer, residing at Kaiwaiwai) deposed that he was a nephew rif the defendant. • The defendant had told him that he had caught Mrs Humphries misconducting herself with Finlayson on three nights in succession, and again on a fourth night. William Lawton, carpenter, of Masterton, deposed that he knew the parties to this action. In July last he was building a house for MaHumphries, and was living in the house occupied by the plaintiff and defendant. He % found Mrs Humphries a hard-working woman, and he saw no impropriety between her and Finlayson. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. A letter from a firm of • solicitors, asking the defendant to withdraw the statement* he had made, was put in,, together with cer.ain interrogatories.

Mr Smart addressed the jury at some length, stating that he would lead evidence to show conclusively that the plaintiff had been guilty of acts of impropriety. George Walter Kempton, farmer, deposed that he had a life interest in a farm at Clareville. He was milking on shares 'with Mrs Humphries, and they occupied the same house. He had noticed Finlayson about the place, and early in April he saw certain acts which aroused his suspicions. On. July 22nd, he had looked through a crack in.a door and,seen certain improprieties. Ho liad also seen improprieties on July ,24th and 28th. ■: He had witli;|he impro-■ .pjiety, ; 'in.- &e ; -h^ar^n^©? '- : M& had sai& "JTor GobcUs."sake don't say anything' about itlj',, . Witn6s»- vrepHed^:tfcatA ii:' ,wai "good' enough for Hump'hrieis," and he would not repeat it. Witness had afterwards taxed Mrs Humphries with her impropriety, arid had forbidden her to come near the house, or, to speak to witness' wife or people. Under cross- examination, the defendant, admitted that he had been convicted of using indecent language, and had been fined £2. The evidence given' against him by his sister, and niece was false. He Vad been committed for trial at Waihi on a charge of alleged sheep stealing, but. was honourably acquitted. He denied having been familiar with his niece, jrixteeu years of age, although he admitted that certain representations had been made to the police. His wife was in a mental hospital, but his ■conduct was not responsible for her going there. His nieces had told him that they had seen improprieties on the 24th. Witness did not warn his isister of her improprieties in April, because" he did not consider he had a right to do r,o. Witness had never sajd tihat he would get square with the Humphries for certain things they had said about him and his niece. His purpose in watching was to satisfy himself that his suspicions) were wellfounded, and to let his sister know that he knew of her conduct. The cross-examination was interrupted at 5.30, when the Court adjourned until this morning.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19120321.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10589, 21 March 1912, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,572

ALLEGED SLANDER CASE Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10589, 21 March 1912, Page 5

ALLEGED SLANDER CASE Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10589, 21 March 1912, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert