ALLEGED SLANDER.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10590, 23 March 1912, Page 5

ALLEGED SLANDER.

ANOTHER CASE.

AMSmONG v. BOWLES.

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.

A case was heard in the Supremo Court at Masterrton yesterday, before His Honor, Mr Justice Edwards, and a jury, in which Sarah. Emma Armstrong, a widow, claimed from Chas. Bowks, settler, of Waihakeke, a sum of £5Ol damages for alleged slander. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs J. B. Rue (foreman), W. Dowling, C. A. Deadman, A. MeKain, S. Allen, J. S. J. Alpass, F. Day, J. Allen, J. V. Gordon, A. E. H. Styles, E. H. Sharp and D. J. Wyllie. Mr Gray, of Wellington, with liim Mr Coleman Phillips, ,appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr P. L. Rollings for the defendant.

The statement of claim set out that ! the plaintiff was employed by the dej fendant as housekeeper, and, with her son and daughter, resided in his house at Waihakeke. It was alleged that on December 31st last the defendant, in the presence of plaintiff's daughter, and of a son of the defendant, falsely and' maliciously spoke and published : the following words:. "Mrs Armstrong, have you been taking my money? Ive been missing money, and some has gone to-day." The plaintiff replied, "If I thought that you thought I had taken your money, I wouldn't stay in your house a day." Whereupon* the defendant falsely and maliciously replied, "Well, I do. I feel I've got the right one. You can pack up your, things and go to-morrow." In a second cause of action the plaintiff alleged that on January 2nd, at Waihakeke, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published to.Andrew -McGregor (a police constable) the words: "On Sunday morning I counted my money. There was ten shillings and sevenpence in the morning; in the evening; there was only seven and sis.

I charged her, saying I had counted my money, and ghe said, 'So you count your money?' and I replied, 'Yes.' t had previously missed sixteen shillings at various times, making altogether nineteen and a penny. I didn't suspect Doris or Lester. I liad given my eon Willie ten shillings a week or so previous. The boy spent two shillings and sixpence, and put seven and six in his puree. He went up town the next Saturday night to pay Hughes a shilling, and found nothing in his purse. So we concluded . that, she. (meaning the plaintiff) was the thief. She was the only person in-the house last Sunday*" .On ;the .first caiisf of ages, and/on" the second, cause £550 damages-.■-•-■/.:-"-,•;' V For-the defence, it was denied that defendant had spoken or published the words set out in the statement of claim, lb was further alleged that the words said to have been used were incapable of the meanings attributed to them, or any other defamatory meaning; and Uhat if it were proved •that the words complained of _wero spoken- and published, they "were , spoken and published bona fide,* and in the honest belief that the facts so stated were true, and without malice, and were privileged. , , . Sarah Banna Armstrong, the plaintiff, deposed that she was a widow, with two children—a girl aged thirteen and a boy aged fourteen. She, came out to New Zealand in August, 1910, with a married sister—Mrs Hill, of 'Carterton. In August, 1911, witness was employed as housekeeper by the defendant, who was a dairy farmer at Waihakeke. The defendant had two sons, one aged sixteen and the other aged eighteen. Witness went to-the house with . her two children. Her wages were 10s per week. Her two children went to the Carterton school. There were four rooms in defendant s house. The whole of the household bad their meals in the one- room, and witness did the work for them. ■ Witness and"her family were in the habit of having their meals at an earlier hour than the defendant and their .sons The defendant was reserved, and did not appear to be used to the society ot women. Witnes ordered the goods required for the household, and defendant paid for them. Witness was paad her wages by cheque. About two months after witness had gone to the house, defendant's son showed witness a puree containing eight shillings m money. This was tihe only time in which witness saw money in the house, excepting on one occasion, when she swept up tteeepence m defendant« room and put it on his table. On the, night of December 31st, witness was in the kitohen with her daughter. The defendant came to the door with- * candle and said, '/Mrs Amstrong, have you been taking my money rWitness replied, "Taking your money Mr Bowles? Certainly not._ I don t even know where you keep it. defendant said, "I have jmjwng mone/ lately, and some has gone today " Witness- replied, It ■* fttouglit you thought I had taken your monev, I wouldn't stay in your house "dav" Defendant stated, in a savage tone,'''Well,ldo ; Ifeeirvegottihe JiSS one. You can pack up your. Sings and go to-morrow/' "hen turned to witness' daughter .and said, "Have you taken *t,- Bonsr, •The "irl started crying, and replied. that she had not. Defendant said, J , don't think that you would and 1 don't think that M e .would He further said to witness "If you teH .™ where my money is, I'll apologise. Wttness that ane *d not know where the money was. She said, lm Tt a woman of that sort." Defendant retorted u "Mrs (a forme housekeeper)~vas not a woman or that S"ut P sKe' was." He "Yon can take it which way you like, yon can pock up your things and go Defendant then went to ns momand brought out a puree which fitness had previously seen with the boy. He counted the money, and said that s all rifflit." In.'an undertone he said. '"The'bow are always losing money. Witness'packed her things on the tallowing morning, but she oouldnot get away until later m the day win*, to the horses being away. IWciuJant gave witness £l, and asked her fa a receipt. Witness said, when she was going. "I hope that the nest person, you get will be .as honest as I was. Pendant replied, "They a say that But I'll say this, I've .nothing else ' against yon." Witness had been four months in the employ of the defend- y ant. She had money in the Post_Ofoce. besides the wages she earned. Witness had seen strange boys visiting the liouse, and on one occasion saw a boy in defendant's room. Defendant had not complained to witness-about mis-, sing his money until December olsl. Witness absolutely denied taking the monev. She subsequently interviewed ■a constable on the matter, and was told that she had only a civil remedy The witness was.cross-examined- ni.

somo length by Mr Hollings. Doris Armstrong, daughter of the plaintiff, gave evidence corroborative of that of her mother. Andrew McGregor, police constable, of Carterton, was called, and objected to giving evidence on the ground that any statement made to hi in was privileged. His Honor said thai before he would decide the question of privilege, he would require 10 hear the facts. The witness then stated, in answer to Mr Giay, tliat Mrs Armstrong had called at the police office at Carterton and complained that she had been charged with theft. Witness thought at the time that this was a criminal offence. His Honor: What! You considered it a criminal offence for Bowles to charge this woman with theft? Witness: 1 thought so at the time. His Honor: Some police constables : have passed their solicitors' examina- \ I tions. I am afraid that you have not. The witness, continuing, stated that under instructions from Constable Carmody he proceeded to see Mr Bowles. Mr Hoi lings objected to the Constable revealing what transpired between himself and Bowles. Ho claimed tliiit this wiis privileged. His Honor" ruled that tho Constable had not interviewed Bowles in pursuance of his duty, and consequently what transpired was not privileged. The witness then proceeded to relate the interview with Bowles, as outlined in the statement of claim. He asked Bowles if he had any complaint to j make against Mrs Armstrong, for the-1 police to take any action in tho matter, and ho replied "No." Witness ' asked if he suspected Mrs Armstrong's children, and ho said, "No, I'vo always found thorn straightforward." The defendant-stated that he still had his suspicions of the woman. Under cross-examination, the witness stated that he had been instruct-ed-by Constable Carmody, his superior officer, to enquire into the complaint lodged by Mrs Armstrong. George Lamb, fishmonger at Carterton, deposed that he knew the parties to tho action, and was aware- that the j plaintiff had been housekeeper to the defendant.Witness was a brother-in-law to the defendant. The defendant had told him that money had been missing, but he tiki not say where it had gone. Witness understood that three sums of money had been missed —one of seven shillings and sixpence being from the boy's purse. Witness did not ask who the defendant suspected, and the defendant made no reference to any persou- who had been in his employ. 'Witness had spoken to a Mr Hill on the subject- of the case, and had told him it was a'strange" thing three money were missing. "He said that Mr Bowles had stated that there was 'only Mrs : Armstrong and the children in tii'e" fioiise - ,' and it was funny the. money was missing. This was the ease for the plaintiff. Mr. .Hollings applied for a nonsuit on the- grounds that the occasion on which the words were alleged to have •been uttered was privileged, and that no malice had been- shown.' His Honor said he would not nonsuit, but would reserve the point. Mr Hollings urged that the statements made to the police officers wer6 privileged, jmd that they were not actionable, because they were mere allegations of suspicion. - s ■ His Honor said he refused to nonsuit, but would reserve the points raised. Mr Hollings then-addressed the jury for the defence. *'George Bowles, the defendant, on oath, deposed that the plaintiff came to his house as housekeeper on August 31st. From the time she arrived until December there was no dispute between them. On December 24th, witness' son Fred complained that he had lost some money. His son William also complained that he had lost money. On the morning of December 31st, witness had 12s 7d in his purse, arid when he counted it in the evening there was only 9s 6d" there.' Witness asked Mrs Armstrong if'-she had taken tire money, and she replied that she had not. ' Witness asked her if anybody had been in the room during the day, and she replied that a young man had been there. Witness said, "Somebody has taken it," and the plaintiff replied, "If you think I have taken the money, Mr Bowles, I will not

stay another day." Witness said that Willie had missed three half-crowns lately, but plaintiff stated that she did not know where it had gone to. The plaintiff said .she had not taken it. Witncs said, "Well, it's a sure thing somebody has taken it." They j parted good friends that night, and ! nothing more was said. On the next j day the defendant did her work, but ! ■after tea she said she was going. "Wit- j ness said, "Very well," and he gave , he-r a pound, which wo-.:id have been due to her on the 3rd of January. Defendant gave a receipt, and asked if her boxes could remain until next day. Witness stated that they could. On the following day Constable McGregor came to sen him and said, "You've ■missed some money, haven't you.'' j Witness told the constable that ne had missed three .shillings and a penny. Tho constable .said, "Have you any suspicion of anybody?" Witness replied that he had not. Witness also told the constable that his son had lost money. ! The witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Gray. He denied having told Mrs Armstrong to leave. William Bowles, son of tho defendant, deposed that he had mentioned to his father having missed a sum of 7s Gd. He also related a conversation between his father and Mrs Armstrong. Frederick Charles Bowles, another son of tho defendant, also gave evidence about the loss of money. This was the case for the defence. Counsl having addressed the jury, His Honor briefly summed up. He stated that the question oi privilege was not one for the jury to consider. All thev had to deal with were the facb. The jury retired at 4.40 p.m., and returned at 5.15 p.m. with a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing the damages at £SO on each cause of action, being £IOO in all. , Mr Gray moved for judgment. His Honor said ho would reserve the whole case for further consideration in Wellington, on a day to lie fixed," as an important legal point was involved in tho nonsuit point raised.