FUNERAL NOTICE.
THE friends of Mr BENJAMIN DAWSON arc respectfully invited to attend the Funeral of his late daughter, ELLEN AGNES, which will leave his residence, Forth-street (near Albany-street). THIS DAY, WEDNESDAY, at a quarter past I o'clock p.m., for the Southern Cemetery.
WALTER G. GEDDES, Undertaker, Octagon. -Otago Daily Times, 21/10/1874.
Deaths
On the 27th October, at Forth street, Dunedin, Alfred Stanhope, son of Benjamin and Hannah Dawson (late of Waihola), aged 19 years; seven days after his twin-sister Ellen Agnes — both having died from inflammation of the lungs, after measles. -Otago Daily Times, 29/10/1874.
FUNERAL NOTICE.
THE Friends of Mr BENJAMIN DAWSON are respectfully invited to attend the Funeral of his late Son, ALFRED STANHOPE, which will leave his residence, Forth street (near Albany street), for the Southern Cemetery, THIS DAY (THURSDAY), at 1 o'clock.
WALTER G. GEDDES, Undertaker, Octagon. -Otago Daily Times, 29/10/1874.
DEATH.
Dawson — This day, at the residence of her parents, Forth street, Jane Hemblen, third daughter of Benjamin and Hannah Dawson, late of Waihola, aged 17, from the same cause as her brother and sister. -Evening Star, 31/10/1874.
PUBLIC NOTICES.
Forth street, Nov. 24th, 1874. THE Undersigned takes the earliest opportunity, on behalf of himself and surviving members of his family, to sincerely thank all those his Friends for the many and practical marks of sympathy accorded them during and since their recent bereavement.
BENJAMIN DAWSON. -Otago Daily Times, 25/11/1874.
The sufferings of the Dawson family of Forth street were foreshadowed by something which today might seem slightly farcical - but in the 1870s the untruthful announcement of an unmarried woman giving birth was a very serious matter.
SUPREME COURT. — CIVIL SITTINGS.
Monday, J2Oth July.
Before His Honour Mr Justice Chapman and a Common Jury.)
DAWSON V. MACKAY.
This was an action for alleged malicious libel, the defendant being proprietor of the Bruce Herald newspaper. The damages arising therefrom were stated at £1000, and four issues were submitted to the Jury.
Mr Taylor and Mr E. Cook appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stout defended. The cause of action arose from an advertisement which appeared in the Bruce Herald, under the head of births, as follows: — "On the 1st inst., at Forth street, Dunedin, Mary, eldest daughter of James Dawson, of Forth street, Dunedin, of a daughter, both doing well."
Mr Stout applied to have the first issue altered. The libel was admitted, and the money (£10) paid into Court. He would, therefore, ask that the first issue be altered as follows: — Did the defendant print and publish of the plaintiff, in the newspaper called the Bruce Herald, the libel alleged in the declaration, without malice and without gross negligence?
Mr Cook demurred to the addition of the words "without malice and without gross negligence," and thought there was no necessity for alteration.
His Honour ruled that the issue could be amended, and read the issues for the information of the Jury.
Mr Cook was about to state the plaintiff's case when Mr Stout raised an objection, and submitted that, as the defendant had admitted the libel and paid costs into Court, he had the right to begin. Mr Cook demurred, and cited Mercer v. Wall in support. Mr Stout replied, and read rule 147 on the question, and the Judge ruled that the defendant's case should have the precedence.
Mr Stout then addressed the Court. The defendant was the printer and publisher of the Bruce Herald, and the notice of birth complained of appeared on the 11th November, 1873. An apology was published in the following issue of the paper, together with an advertisement offering £10 reward for the discovery of the forger. Counsel read a letter from Benjamin Dawson, plaintiff's father, stating that he would take immediate proceedings against the proprietor of the Herald. After reading the advertisement and apology, counsel said the Jury would see the nature of the case they had to try. The defendant's manager, Mr Solomon, received the letter purporting to be from Benjamin Dawson, enclosing the notice of birth, and inserted it, not thinking that anyone would be so base as to throw such a slight on the character of the young lady mentioned. After receiving the information that the plaintiff was unmarried, the defendant once published an apology in the leading columns of the Bruce Herald, offered £10 reward for the discovery of the perpetrator of the villainy, sent a message to the Commissioner of Police in Dunedin, and forwarded a special apology to Mr Dawson himself. Defendant had paid £10 into Court, and thereby acknowledged his willingness to pay all the costs Miss Dawson had incurred up to that time. Counsel thought the plaintiff was ill advised to prosecute, but, like Shylock of old, she appeared to want her pound of flesh, and claimed £1000 damages. No malice could be shown on the part of defendant, as he did not even know Miss Dawson. He was most sorry that the birth had been published, and did everything that he could under the circumstances. He had been very indignant at the perpetration of the forgery and dastardly attack on the plaintiff. Counsel submitted that the Jury must find the issues in favour of the defendant, and called Joseph Mackay, who deposed that he was proprietor of the Bruce Herald. He was not in Tokomairiro on the 11th of November last year, having come to Dunedin. His attention was first drawn to the announcement of the birth when proceeding to Tokomairiro. As he was passing Waihola, a friend of Mr Dawson's drew his attention to the advertisement, and he looked at the paper when he went home. Witness did not know the plaintiff or her father. He never had any malice against the plaintiff. The apology was published in the following issue of the Herald to that in which the notice of the birth appeared, and had been written before Mr Dawson's letter was received, on the evening of the 13th November, 1873. The apology was in type before any intimation was received from Mr Dawson or his solicitor. Witness wrote a private letter to Mr Dawson on the subject. The letter was dated 14th November, and after expressing sympathy for the plaintiff, stated that witness had done all he could under the circumstances, and requested Mr Dawson to assist him to discover the perpetrator of the dastardly attempt to injure the plaintiff. Mr Gillies went to Dunedin to place the matter in the hands of the Police. Witness assured Mr and Mrs Dawson of his sympathy, and published the notice offering £10 reward.
By Mr Cook: Witness had lived for several years in Tokomairiro, and Mr Dawson and his family had been there. He did not remember speaking to Mr Dawson in his life. There was a farmer of the name of Louis Dawson in Tokomairiro, but witness did not know any person named Benjamin Dawson in the district. The plaintiff's father was the only one of the name Benjamin Dawson that he knew. Mr Solomon had been witness's manager for two years, but he did not know whether Solomon had ever previously managed a paper. Witness had been away from Tokomairiro in November for about two weeks, and left the management of his office to Mr Solomon and Mr Gillies. The editor was in the habit of reading everything that went into the paper. Witness had published the advertisement offering £10 reward for the discovery of the forger of the notice of birth. He sometimes inserted births, marriages, and deaths free of charge to subscribers. A charge had been made to Mr Dawson for the notice in question, but the account was not paid. Witness was not aware whether Mr Gillies saw the advertisement before it appeared in the paper. Mr Gillies never told witness that he cautioned Solomon not to insert it, nor did he say that Dawson should have been written to before the advertisement was published.
Joseph Henry Solomon deposed that he had been manager of the Bruce Herald since September, 1872, and he was not on the staff before that period. During Mr Mackay's absence, he looked after the advertisements. Witness received the letter produced containing the advertisement relating to Miss Dawson on the evening of the 8th November. It was signed, "Benjamin Dawson." Witness placed it on the advertisement file. He asked the compositors if they knew the married name of Miss Dawson, so that it might be inserted in brackets. He showed the advertisement to Mr Gillies, the Editor, before it was published. Witness thought Mr Dawson had adopted the peculiar style of publishing his daughter's name in order that her friends in Tokomairiro might know that it was she who had given birth to a daughter. Witness asked several residents in Tokomairiro if they knew the married name of Miss Dawson, who might have married a stranger whose name would not have been known in that district. He had seen letters from Mr Dawson, and the advertisement appeared to be in his handwriting. Witness had no malice against the plaintiff, and was never acquainted with her.
By Mr Cook: Witness was bookkeeper, and looked after the advertisements in the Herald-office since December, 1872, but had never been engaged on a newspaper before that period. He knew that Mr and Mrs Dawson were living in Tokomairiro at one time. Some old letters that he looked through were signed Benjamin Dawson, and the advertisement bore a similar autograph. Witness received the advertisement on a Saturday, and on the following Monday took it into the printers' room. The advertisement struck him as being rather singularly worded. After asking the compositors if they knew the married name of Miss Dawson, he asked Mr Gillies, who remarked upon the singularity of its composition. Mr Gillies said, "This is a singular form of advertisement;" whereupon witness remarked, "I will show you the copy of it; I think it has been worded to show the friends of the young lady in this district that she has had a daughter." After witness declared his belief that the handwriting of the advertisement was similar to the letters of Mr Dawson's, Mr Gillies said "It will be all right," and the advertisement was passed in. By passing the proof, Mr Gillies authorised the advertisement to appear. Mr Fleming was on the Herald staff at that time, and witness never asked him for his opinion on the subject, nor did Mr Fleming speak to him about it on the 10th November. If Mr Fleming says that he was consulted, he would swear falsely. Witness inserted the advertisement solely because the handwriting was similar to that of other letters received from Benjamin Dawson, and he thought that it was to let the friends of Miss Dawson know of the birth. It never struck him to write to Mr Dawson, of Forth street, Dunedin, before the peculiar advertisement was published. Mr Dawson was not a subscriber at that time, but had formerly been one. No money was sent with the advertisement, but it had been placed to Mr Dawson's account. We sometimes put in such advertisements free.
His Honour thought advertisements relating to births, marriages, and deaths should be charged for, as thereby an additional guarantee of authenticity would be afforded.
Mr Cook: In large cities these advertisements are required to be witnessed by responsible parties.
Cross-examination continued. By Mr Stout: Witness did not know whether Mr Gillies had any experience on newspapers before his connection with the Bruce Herald, where witness believed he had been engaged for four or five years.
Frederick Mallard, Sub-Inspector of Police at Dunedin, deposed that during Mr Weldon's absence he acted in his stead. Witness had been consulted about the advertisement which appeared in the Bruce Herald relating to Miss Dawson, and had done everything he could to find out the perpetrator, but was as yet unsuccessful.
By Mr Cook: Witness never made a formal report to the defendant.
Frank S. Canning deposed that he was formerly employed in the Bruce Herald Office, and had seen Mr Dawson on the defendant's behalf, but could get no satisfactory answer.
This concluded the case for the defendant.
Mr Cook then addressed the Court. The advertisement offering a reward and the apology were no doubt eloquently read by the learned counsel for the defence, but that reminded him of a barrister who prided himself on the manner in which he could read an affidavit. On the 11th November, 1873, the young lady alluded to in the advertisement had just attained the age of 21. He thought the Jury would be struck with the singularity of the advertisement — a father advertising that his unmarried daughter was confined of a child. It was sufficiently singular to attract the attention of any business man. There was a total want of reason in the argument adduced about the friends of the daughter wishing to know the circumstance. He referred to the reward which was offered, and argued that with a beggarly twopence the defendant might have ascertained the truth of the advertisement. The insertion of it showed palpable negligence on the part of those who had the management of the Bruce Herald. Mr Gillies had remarked upon the singularity of the advertisement, but Mr Solomon put himself up as an expert in recognising the resemblance of handwriting, and from his statement the advertisement was published. Counsel cited the case against the Daylesford Mercury, in which a libel had been surreptitiously published, and the Jury in the case recognised the apology printed three days afterwards as sufficient. His learned friend had referred to the £10 paid into Court as being ample satisfaction for this libel, but he thought the Jury would show their sense of the gross negligence exhibited. He called
Mary Hannah Dawson, the plaintiff, who deposed that she was twenty-one on the 11th November, 1873, and had formerly lived at Waihola with her father and mother. On the 25th March, 1872, they came to reside in Dunedin. Witness saw the advertisement relating to herself in the Bruce Herald of the 11th November, her birthday. Witness had not the slightest idea from whom the notice of birth originated, and never was married. Her attention had first been drawn to the advertisement on the 13th November, and she was highly offended at such an imputation. Her father was a farmer at Waihola, and she had eleven brothers and sisters.
Benjamin Dawson, father of the plaintiff, deposed that he was a farmer for 15 years at Waihola, and occupied his own land. He brought his family with him to Dunedin. He had twelve children, six of whom were daughters, and the age of the one next to the plaintiff was 19 years. Witness read the advertisement in the Bruce Herald about his eldest daughter, to whom he had no doubt it referred. He never sent the advertisement, nor authorised any one to publish it. There was no foundation for it.
Witness proceeded to Tokoniairiro about the matter, and his friends there remarked to him upon the advertisement. His eldest daughter had always lived at home.
By Mr Stout: A friend of witness's in Waihola, named Hilgendorf, first told him of the advertisement. He knew from public rumour that Hilgendorf had an ill feeling against the defendant. Witness never had an interview with the defendant about the advertisement relating to his daughter, nor took any steps to find out the perpetrator of the outrage.
By Mr Cook: Witness wrote to Mr Taylor about the advertisement immediately after it appeared in the paper.
Hubert L. Stanford, minister of All Saints' Church, deposed that he formerly resided at Tokomairiro for some years, and was engaged in the ministry there. Witness came to Dunedin about the New Year, 1873. He knew the plaintiff in this action and the other members of her family, and had been acquainted with them for nearly ten years. Mr Dawson was a settler in Waihola, and occupied a good position. Witness knew Mr Dawson's handwriting, and was confident that the advertisement in the Bruce Herald of the 11th November, 1873, referred to the plaintiff. He believed that paper had a large circulation.
James Philip Maitland, Resident Magistrate at Tokomairiro, deposed that he had resided there for some time, and knew the plaintiff and her family. Witness had been acquainted with Mr Dawson since 1852, when he was in business in Dunedin. Mr Dawson had always occupied a respectable position. Witness saw the advertisement on the morning of publication, and had no doubt it referred to the plaintiff. It formed the subject of considerable discussion and comment among the people in the district at the time.
By Mr Stout: What formed the subject of comment was the very extraordinary wording of the advertisement. Witness believed he had read the apology which was published three days afterwards.
Henry F. Hardy, architect, knew Mr Dawson, who had come to Dunedin in the same ship with him 21 years ago. He was aware that the plaintiff's father had been a farmer at Waihola, and that all the family resided together. Mr Dawson was a man of considerable means when he came to Dunedin, and had purchased the farm at Waihola, where he had been till recently. His position and character were always good. Witness saw the advertisement relating to the plaintiff at Langley's Hotel in Tokomairiro, on the morning of publication. The paper was lying on the public table. He knew the advertisement was false, and believed the Bruce Herald had a large circulation.
By Mr Stout: Farming was evidently improfitable to Mr Dawson. Witness became the purchaser of his farm.
John S. Fleming, Editor of the Clutha Leader, deposed that, in November last, he was the Sub-editor of the Bruce Herald. He did not know the plaintiff personally. He saw the advertisement in the paper, and before it was printed. Mr Solomon showed it to him. When witness came into the Herald Office from dinner at one o'clock on the Saturday or Monday — he was not sure as to the day — Mr Solomon showed him the letter containing the advertisement relating to Miss Dawson, and said, "Here's a lark; what do you think of this?" The letter was the same, to the best of his knowledge and belief. Witness laid it down on the counter, and was walking into the Editor's room, when Solomon said, "What do you think of it?" Witness replied, "Well, it does not require anyone to tell you what this is." He said, "What is it, then?" Witness answered, "It is some unfortunate girl who has had an illegitimate child, and some one who has a down upon her wishes to publish it to the world," or something to that effect. Shortly after that, Solomon came into the Editor's room, and exclaimed, "Mr Dawson resided in Tokomairiro for some time, and the advertisement was written in that form to let the Tokomairiro people know that it was his daughter, and if the husband's name were mentioned Miss Dawson would not have been known." Witness thought it was some unfortunate girl who had had an illegitimate child. Solomon said, "Would you insert it in the Bruce Herald?" and witness replied, "Certainly not." Solomon remarked that he had letters in Dawson's handwriting, but he could not find them. He never showed them to witness at all events.
By Mr Stout: The Bruce Herald is published at Balclutha. Witness was not dismissed by the defendant for drunkenness, and denied being in a state of insobriety on the 11th November. There was no one present when he had the conversation with Mr Solomon. Witness heard the conversation that took place between Mr Gillies and Mr Solomon, and was fit for his duties that evening.
Mr Taylor then addressed the Jury, and after a lengthy comment on the evidence, finished with some extracts from Shakespeare on the stealing of the "good name." Mr Stout briefly replied, and said that the evidence showed no actual malice on the part of defendant. Mr Dawson acknowledged that he had taken no steps to find out the perpetrator of the libel, and it was simply money that he wanted. The defendant had done all that mortal man could do; and it would be unfair to the Press and the defendant if the Jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff. The first person who told Dawson of the advertisement was Hilgendorf, a man who had a "down" against the defendant. Ample apology had been tendered to the young lady, and it should have been received If they gave a verdict for the plaintiff in this ease, they would be only holding out an inducement to forgers to endeavour to gain heavy damages. He would leave the case in the hands of the Jury.
His Honour then summed up. There was one point which the Jury would have no difficulty in coining to a decision upon — that the action of the perpetrator was one of the most malicious that could be done. But the question was whether the libel was published maliciously by the proprietor of the Bruce Herald. The person who was left in charge during the defendant's absence had inadvertently allowed the advertisement to appear in the paper. They would have no difficulty to show that there was no malice exhibited on the part of the defendant. The libel itself could not be denied. The question of the apology not being sufficient was for the Jury to determine, and also whether the amount paid into Court was sufficient The defendant voluntarily inserted what he thought a sufficient and ample apology, and the advertisement offering £10 reward showed his intention to bring the proper party to justice. He had also set the Detective Police in motion to find out the forger. His Honour said it was still the practice among some of the Scotch residents, in notices of deaths of married women, to advertise their maiden names. But the advertisement in question was very singular, and was calculated to raise the suspicion that it had been intended for a hoax. It appeared from Mr Solomon's account that because the lady bad presumably married a stranger, the people of Tokomairiro would not know the husband's name, and therefore the advertisement had been so singularly worded. It struck His Honour as being very surprising that such an opinion should be given. The advertisement itself had occasion to blush from the very wording of it. There were many ways of drawing up an advertisement to show the name of a married lady. There was another question with regard to gross negligence. Two days would have been sufficient to find out the authority of the advertisement. Again, the proprietor of the paper was bound to keep competent employes. It was for the Jury to say whether there was gross negligence or not. The defendant and Solomon had appeared to have done everything they could to make amends. It would be for the Jury to say whether the apology and the £10 paid into Court were sufficient, taking all the circumstances into consideration.
After about half-an-hour's deliberation, The Jury gave answers as follows to the issues: —
1. Did the defendant print and publish of the plaintiff, in the newspaper called the Bruce Herald, without malice and without gross negligence, the libel alleged in the declaration? — Yes.
2. Did the defendant publish the apology set out in the plea of the defendant, or any and what apology?— Yes.
3. Is the said apology, if published, a sufficient apology? — Yes.
4. Is the plaintiff entitled to any and what damages? — £50.
The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock to tomorrow morning. -Otago Daily Times, 21/7/1874.
The false birth announcement, and subsequent apology, are as follows:
BIRTH.
On the 1st instant, at Forth-street, Dunedin Mary, eldest daughter of B. Dawson, of a daughter, both doing well. -Bruce Herald, 11/11/1873.
We cannot say with what feelings of indignation we write regarding what we are led to suspect has been a most disgraceful hoax perpetrated on the manager of this paper last week. By the mail from Dunedin on the 8th, he received a letter addressed to Mr J. Mackay, as follows: — "Forth-street, Dunedin, November 2, 1873. — To Mr J. Mackay — Sir, — Please to insert in your next issue this birth. — On the 1 inst., at Forth-street, Dunedin, Mary, eldest daughter of B. Dawson, of a daughter — both doing well. — I remain, yours respectfully, Benjamin Datwson. — Mr Mackay, Bruce Herald Office, Milton.— 2, 11, 1873." We need not say with what extreme regret we have heard from parties resident here in the district, that the letter is suspected to be a forgery, and an attempt by some low degraded scamp to damage the character and reputation of a young lady, who, we are informed, is not married. It is with intense sorrow that we think that this journal has been trapped into permitting itself to be made the unwitting channel of such a piece of perfidious villiany, and we will leave no stone unturned in our endeavors to find out the author of the forgery, if it prove to be one. Mr Mackay offers a reward of L10 for such information as may lead to the discovery of the writer of the letter. In the meantime we take this earliest opportunity of denouncing the scoundrel, whoever he may be, and apologising to the young lady and her friends for the publication of the advertisement, if the suspicions we refer to should prove correct. We can only further add that this matter has given us more pain and annoyance than anything we have met with during our connection with this journal, and should we be able to trace it home, we intend to make it a warning to the perpetrator that will not be forgotten. We place the matter in the hands of a party or parties who are most likely to be successful in tracing out the handwriting, which is not at all disguised, and will thankfully receive any information that may assist us in ferreting out the supposed guilty one.
[Since writing the foregoing, and just before going to press, we have received the following from a Mr Dawson. To what we have already written, we can only add that on the first hint that we had been played false with, we took immediate steps to ascertain the genuineness or otherwise of the signature to the advertisement, and finding reason for believing it to be a forgery, we wrote the above explanation. Whether there are more Benjamin Dawsons than one we know not, but willingly insert the denial forwarded. — Ed B.H.]
(To the Editor of the 'Bruce Herald.') Sir, — In your issue of Tuesday last, the 11th inst., an announcement of a birth is contained, which I write to say to you is a scandalous falsehood, and I am surprised that you should have published such a statement. I have instructed my solicitor to take immediate proceedings for the vindication of my daughter's character, upon which you have given an opportunity by this publication for a foul aspersion to be cast. In the meantime, however, that the earliest possible denial may be given, I now write to say that there is not one single word of truth in the advertisement alluded to, and I must request you to insert this letter in your publication of to-morrow (Friday) without fail.
I am, Sir, yours, &c, Benjamin Dawson. Tokomairiro, Nov. 13th, 1873. -Bruce Herald, 14/11/1873.
