A CURIOUS LIBEL ACTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1067, 6 May 1882, Page 3

A CURIOUS LIBEL ACTION.

In the libel case, George Turnbull and John Bathgate v David Proudfoot, after argument it was decided to stiike out the name of J. Bathgato, It was then Bet forth that about the 4th day of June, 1880, the defendant falsely and mali- ' ciously, and in a defamatory aonse, wrote and published to Sir William Henry Drake the following letter of and concern- ' ingtho plaintiff:— " Duncdin, June 4,1880, '«Sir, —Kb local Directors, Bathgate and Turnbull, take care you don't get the

valueless property foisted on tbo Company. Thoy aro both needy men, and are interested in certain land speculations. One of them baa been doing business on paper for tlio past ten yoars. Take care, or tlio shareholders will loso their in'onoy. Make enquiries from independent sources. In giving properties as securities for advance thoy will put other names forward. Bathgate's going Home was ostensibly to float a Company, and lie obtained Icavo of absence as a lecturing agent, through tho influence of Turnbull and ut certain member of Government, but tlio object was to borrow money on bad properties, which will bo handed over to tho Company. Enquire into the relations botw'een B. and T., and the properties they avo mixod up in, especially the lattor, and the properties thoy and their friends aro likely to be in. Appoint your solicitor rnd surveyor, and value entirely irrespective of relations or friends, or you will be swindled. "A Friend." Plaintiff claimed £'lo,ooo damages. The evidence of experts, who bad compared tho letter with Mr Proudfoot's writing, was given, and no evidonco was called for tho defence. In answer to strong lauguago used by plaintiff's counsel as to the nature of tho letter and Mr Proudfoot's absence from the colony, defendant's counsel said his absence might bo accounted for by business elsewhoro and his having been advised by his solicitor that the other sido could not succeed. Tho jury gavo a verdict of i'loo damages and the points reserved in the caso aro to bo argued on a future date.