ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 868, 30 September 1871, Page 3

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

The libel case, Dixon v. Forsyth, Was tried in the Melbourne County Court, 25th August, before his Honour Judge Cope and a jury of four. The plaintiff is a young man named William Frederick Baily Dixon, and the defendant, William Forsyth, is the late proprietor of the Melbourne " Herald." The amount sued for is £IOOO damages. Mr M'Donnell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr G-. P. Smith for 'the defendant.

The alleged libel, which was published in the" Herald" of 9th of June, 1871, runs as ; follows : :— " Wives V. Husbands.—Two cases of gross brutality, in 'Which the wives were the plaintiffs, -came before the District Court'this afternoon, and in both cases a horrible of things, it is alleged, exists. The 'first case was that of Dixon v. Dixon, in which the plaintiff is a very pretty young woman with golden hair and fair complexion • and the defendant a sharebroker,'late of Ballarat. Dixon, it appears, was in the habit of thrashing his wife unmercifully, and was arrested this morning off Queenscliff, as the New Zealand <vessel was going through the Rip, on a charge of wile desertion. He has thirty sovereigns in his possession ; and has, it is said, lately been basking in other smiles besides those of his lawful helpmate. Mrs Dixon was married in 1861 to her husband, who was then a butcherin'Geelong. They had lived unhappily, and he_kept this bad conduct up to the present time. In 1862 he went to New -Zealand, having previously placed her in lodgings. In 1863 she found him and lived with him until 1869, when it Was alleged he became acquainted with a young lady there. This aquaintance was continued, and his wife becoming ill, came to Victoria and subsequently went to England, with her husband's consent, on a visit. When she came back in May she learned that the father of the young lady, and the young lady herself a Miss Proud were in Victoria, and living together " a very happy family." Mrs Dixon became very much annoyed at this state of things, as she had no money, and Mr Dixon was watching ever the interests of Miss Proud, and £IO,OOO which her father had left her when he died lately. During the time that the parties were waiting in court, a pretty little scene occurred during the adjournment for lunch, in which Mr Dixon embraced Mrs D., and besought her to withdraw the case. Mr Buigan called the defendant a blackguard and a miscreant in court, and said he wished his wife to institute a divorce suit against him, and he would conduct it himself. The matter was ultimately disposed of by Mr Call ordering the defendant to pay 15s per week for his wife's support. Mr M'Donnell, in opening the case, stated that the alleged libel was not a faithful report of the proceedings at the District Court, and that it contained many allegations which were not made at the hearing of the case referred to in the paragraph.

The first witness called was the plaintiff whose examination occupied the time of the court till its adjournment.

The case was resumed on Monday Aug. 28, when the plaintiff was crossexamined by Mr Gr. P. Smith. Plaintiff admitted having beaten his wife seven or eight years, ago. Then he only slapped her with his open hand. He never committed adultery while living with his wife. He had never told Smith that in the event of a divorce being obtainable he would marry Miss Proud. He had kissed her often both before his wife, and during her absence. He thought this was perfectly proper conduct. Miss Proud had often sat •on his knee. They were very friendly together. He kissed her the Sunday after her father's funeral, and asked her not to fret. Mr Gr. P. Smith having addressed the jury for the defence, evidence was taken. Dr Duigan bar-rister-at stated that he had spoken in the police court in the case against the plaintiff much more strongly than the report set forth. He had called the plaintiff a blackguard and a miscreant. Mr Morrison also said that the report was quite true, and that it did not contain more than a quarter of what he was instructed. Quite sufficient, he stated, transpired in the court to justify theJsJierald " statement. Mrs Youlden,TOe wife of Mr Proud's executor, was called. She said she remembered the Sunday after the funeral of Miss Proud's father. On that day plaintiff dined at her house. After dinner he complained of being ill, and said he would go upstairs and lie down. He did go to the children's bedroom, and lay on one of the beds. Shortly <afterWaTds witness went up herself and foufid Miss Proud in the room where plaintiff was lying. A daughter of witness Was also present. Witness asked Miss Proud to come to ber room if she wished to lie down, as her bed was big enough for two. The young lady'declined. After a lapse of half an hour, witness again went to the children's reom, but found no one there. Passed on to the servant's room, where Miss Proud slept, aiid on opening the door, which she found closed, she saw plaintiff lying on one fa !

bed and Miss Proud on the other. There was no one else in the room. This witness was not cross-examined. Some other evidence was taken, chiefly that of Mr Youklen, who said that on his dying bed Mr Proud objected to the intimacy which existed between plaintiff and his daughter, and asked him (witness) to see that Dixon got no power over the £IO,OOO his daughter inherited. Mr G. P. Smith made a powerful sheech for the defendant. Mr M'Dounell replied. The jury, after a short deliberation, brought in a verdict for the defendant.