A SCHOOLMASTER'S HONOUR.
SOUTH CARNARVONSHIRE SLANDER ACTION.
Mr David Jones, headmaster of the Llidiardau Council School, Rhoshirwaen, near Pwllheli, brought an action against Hugh and Ellen Jones, husband and wife, residing at Rhoshirwaen, for damages for alleged slander.Mr Montgomery, K.C., and Mr T. E. Morris (instructed by Messrs Baker and Nairne, London) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Artemus Jones and Mr W. Roberts (instructed by Messrs Lloyd George and George) defended.
Mr Montgomery in opening, said that the alleged slanderous statement was uttered by the female defendent, but in law both husband and wife were liable. The plaintiff was a single man, and was appointed headmaster of Llidiardau School after completing his training at the Bangor University College. His Aunt was the caretaker of the school, and the next person in the case was a Mrs Ellen Roberts, the wife of Evan Roberts, a labourer, who was employed by the plaintiff's aunt to do some of the rougher cleaning at school, and he was paid by the plaintiff, on behalf of his aunt. Sometimes the plaintiff paid Evan Roberts at the school or in the road, and sometimes he went to Roberts' house for the purpose. If Evan Roberts was not at home the plaintiff paid the wife.
In March, 1914, the female defendant went to the home of Mrs Eliza Griffith in Rhoshirwaen, and in the course of a conversation she, it was alleged, said, "Ellen Roberts has told me that Mr David Jones (schoolmaster), visits her and misconducts hlmself with her." Any statement more wicked or more calculated to injure the plainliff in his profession was difficult to conceive of. It was absurd to suppose that Mrs Ellen Roberts had ever said such a thing and she would on oath deny uttering such a statement. About March last year the female defendant was in her garden, and a woman named Elizabeth Jones happened to be going by, and they got into conversation. The female defendant said, "Have you heard, that Mr David Jones is courting with Mrs Ellen Roberts?" Elizabeth Jones made a chaffing remark. The female defendant then said, "Mrs Roberts has told me that David Jones has misconducted himself with her." Some time in June it came to the ears of the plaintiff that there were rumours in the neighbourhood of misconduct between him and Mrs Ellen Roberts, and he began to make inquiries.
He interviewed the female defendant and asked what grounds she had for spreading reports of that kind. She replied, "Mrs Roberts told me herself." She did not deny that she had uttered the words imputed to her. Then the plaintiff got both defendants to see Mrs Ellen Roberts, who, in their presence, denied ever making such a statement. In fact, it was not suggested there was the slightest truth in the allegation. Eliza Griffiths, wife of Owen Griffiths, Refail Bach, Rhoshirwaen, gave evidence. Elizabeth Jones, Glanrafon, Rhoshirwaen, stated that the female defendant, in the course of a conversation, said that Mrs Roberts, had told her that Mr David Jones was in the habit of visiting her. Witness took the statement very lightly, and remarked. "It is a pity that she has got two and I have not any" (laughter). Witness did not remember the female defendant saying anything further, and she did not think anything more of what had been said. Witness did not use the, word "indecent" in her statement to the plaintiff's solicitors. The female defendant did not say that Mrs Roberts said she misconducted herself with the schoolmaster. The female defendant did not give her to understand that the schoolmaster was doing anything more than courting Mrs Roberts. Mr Montgomery: Did you think that something improper was being suggested?—I did not think one way or other about it.
At the request of the Judge the signed statement of the witness was read as follows:—"I met Mrs Ellen Jones, and during the conversation Mrs Jones asked me if I had heard that Mr David Jones was courting Mrs Ellen Roberts. I said it is a great pity that she was having two sweethearts and I was without any. Then Mrs Jones said that Mrs Robert.s had informed her that Mr David Jones had misconducted or behaved improperly with her. I cannot remember on what the conversation turned after this, but I do remember very well that she had said that David Jones had behaved improperly with Mrs Roberts." Mr Artemus Jones: Did you understand Mrs Ellen Jones to say that Mr David Jones had committed adultery. Nothing of the sort. I treated it lightly.
The plaintiff stated that since 1900 he had been headmaster of Llidiardau Council School, and lived with his aunt near the school. in June last he heard something which induced him to see the female defendant. He asked her whether she had uttered slanderous statements respecting Mrs Ellen Roberts and himself. She then said that Mrs Ellen Roberts had told her so herself. He asked the two defendants to accompany him to the house of Mrs Ellen Roberts. There he asked Mrs Roberts whether she told Mrs Jones he was courting her.
The Judge : Does the word "courting" in Welsh convey improper relation.
The Plaintiff: Yes, in my part of the country. Proceeding, the plaintiff said Mrs Roberts denied saying such a thing, and the two women argued about it. Cross-examined, plaintiff said that the children of the female defendant were still attending his school. The female defendant boasted that the statement had gone all over the country. Mrs Ellen Roberts wife of Evan Roberts, Rhoshirwaen, said that her husband worked for the two defendants, but at the beginning of last year something occurred between witness and Mrs Jones, and they had not been friends since.
Mr Montgomery : Have you ever said to Mrs Jones that Mr David Jones was courting you?
Witness: No.
Mr Evan Jones Griffith, headmaster of the Pwllheli Boys Council School, stated that in August, 1914, he went to Rhoshirwaen with a representative of the National Union of Teachers. They told the female defendant they had come to give her an opportunity to apologise to Mr David Jones. The female defendant asked, "Must I do it today?"
Witness said it would be better. Her husband said that if they went to law he had money to fight the case. No evidence was called for the defence. Mr Artemus Jones, for the defence, said the real question for the jury was what was the meaning conveyed by the words alleged to have been uttered, to the person on the spot, and not what impression they would have on grave N. U.T. officials in London. The Welshmen on the jury would know what was meant by the word "courtship" alleged to have been used by the female defendant. It meant nothing harmful. There was no evidence that the alleged slander was ever uttered by the female defendant or that the words spoken had reference to the plaintiff's profession.
The Judge submitted four questions to the jury, who, after retiring. answered them as follows :-
(1) Did the words spoken impute moral misconduct?—Y es.
(2) Were they spoken in the way of his calling in a manner to imperil the retention of his office?—Yes.
(3) Did they impute that he was unfit to hold his office?—Yes.
(4) Damages?— £ 10.
Judgment was not entered, his lordship intimating that he would hear counsel on legal points which arose during the hearing of the case in London
North Wales Chronicle 22/01/1915
CARNARVONSHIRE SLANDER CASE.
SEQUEL TO ASSIZE TRIAL. DAMAGES FOR A SCHOOLMASTER.
In the King's Bench Division, on Friday, Mr Justice Lush had before him for further consideration, the case of Jones v. Jones and wife, an action tried before him at Carnarvon.In this case Mr David Jones headmaster of the Llidiardau Council School at Rhoshirwaen, Pwllheli, sued Hugh Jones and Ellen Jones his wife for damages for alleged slander said to have been spoken by the female defendant in May 1914.
Plaintiff stated that Mrs Jones said of him in relation to his profession as teacher and headmaster : Mrs Ellen Roberts has told me that Mr David Jones has been conducting himself improperly with her. Defendant denied that the slander was spoken, and said if it was it was not spoken of plaintiff in relation to his profession as headmaster of the school. Mr Montgomery, K.C., and Mr T. E. Morris were for the plaintiff, and Mr T. Artemus Jones for the defendants. Mr Montgomery said the jury at the trial found that words were spoken by the female defendant whch imputed immoral conduct to the plaintiff; that the words were spoken in such a way as to imperil the plaintiff's retention of his office, and that the words imputed that the plaintiff was unfitted to hold his office. On these he now had to ask for judgment on behalf of the plaintiff, to whom the jury awarded £10 as damages.
At the further hearing of the case on Tuesday, Mr Artemus Jones proceeded to argue the ease for the defendants. He reminded his Lordship that the jury at the trial found that the words were spoken by the female defendant, and imputed immoral conduct to the plaintiff, that the words were spoken in such a way as to imperil the plaintiff's retention of his offiœ, and that the words imputed that the plaintiff was unfitted to hold his office. The jury awarded the plaintiff £ 10 as damages.
His submission to the court with regard to the findings of the jury were
(1) that no finding could be binding unless it was grounded on some evidence, and
(2) that his lordship had directed the jury as to the meaning of slander "in relation to the profession or trade" of a person, and asked them whether on the facts of the case the words spoken were brought within that direction.
He respectfully submitted that his lordship did not state what the law really was on that point. He also contended that there was no evidence of special damage here. His further submisision was that there was no evidence that the words were spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his profession.
His lordship : I think you may take it in your favour that there was no question or finding that the slander imputed to this gentleman that while acting qua schoolmaster he misconducted himself.
Mr Artemus Jones : I say there was not a shred of evidence before the jury to support their finding.
Long legal arguements ensued.
His Lordship, in giving judgement, said he was of opinion that there was abundant grounds for the findings of the jury. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down in the authorities, he thought that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action, although the speaker did not refer to his being a headmaster. On these grounds he entered judgement, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, for the plaintiff for £10 and costs.
He granted a stay of execution on the usual terms.
North Wales Chronicle 19/02/1915
ACHOS O LEYN YN LLYS APEL.
Dyfarniad Pwysig yn Llys yr Apeliadau.
Ddydd Iau rhoddwyd dyfarniad y llys yn achos Mr David Jones, prifathraw ysgol Llidiardau, Rhoshirwaen ger Pwllheli, yn erbyn Mr Hugh Jones, Cae Engan, Rhoshirwaen, a'i wraig, Mrs Ellen Jones.Daeth yr achos ymlaen yn y lle cyntaf ym Mrawdlys Caernarfon ar y 19eg o Ionawr. 1915, pryd y rhoddwyd tystiolaeth fod Mrs Ellen Jones wedi dweyd wrth Miss Elizabeth Jones, cymydoges iddi. "A glywsoch chwi fod Mr David Jones yn caru gyda Mrs Ellen Roberts? Dywedodd Mrs Roberts wrthyf fod Mr David Jones wedi bod yn ymddwyn yn anweddus a hi."
Ar hyn rhoddodd y rheithwyr ddyfarniad o 10p o blaid yr achwynydd.
Yna daeth yr achos ymlaen gerbron y Barnwr Lush yn Llundain, a rhoddodd ei ddyfarniad o blaid yr achwynydd am y swm uchad gyda'r costau.
Apeliwyd yn erbyn y dyfarniad hwn i Lys yr Apel, a daeth yr achos gerbron y llys hwnw ar yr ail a'r 3ydd o'r mis hwn, pryd yr ymddangosodd Mr Greer, K.C., a Mr Artemus Jones (yn cael eu cyfarwyddo gan y Mri Lloyd George a George, Criccieth) ar ran yr apelyddion. a Mr Montgomery, K.C., a Mr T. E. Morris (yn cael eu cyfarwyddo gan y Mri Baker Nairne, cyfreithwyr y National Union of Teachers. LIundain) ar ran yr atebydd. Dadl Mr Greer ydoedd nad oedd Mrs Jones, wrth adrodd y geiriau uchod, yn bwriadu adlewyrchu yn anffafriol ar gymeriad yr atebydd fel ysgolfeistr, ac nad oedd ganddo unrhyw hawl gyfreithiol i iawn yn ei herbyn hi a'i phriod o dan yr amgylchiadau.
Gwrthwynebai Mr Montgomery y ddadl hon ac wedi gwrandawiad maith ar y dadleuon ar y naill ochr a'r llall hysbyswyd y byddai i'r llys gymeryd y mater i ystyriaeth pellach; a dydd Iau diweddaf rhoddodd yr Arglwydd Farnwr Swinfen Eady ddyfarniad unfrydol y llys o blaid Mr a Mrs Hugh Jones, gyda'r costau.
Yr Herald Gymraeg 14/12/1915
I FYD Y FODRWY.
Ar y 12fed cyf. yn mhresenoldeb Mr. Robert Roberts, cofrestrydd, Sarn. unwyd mewn glan briodas Mr. David Jones, ysgolfeistr y Rhos, a Miss Catherine Jones Griffith unig ferch Mr. a Mrs Griffith. Bodrudd, yng Nghapel Salem. Pwllheli, gan y Parch. J. W. Jones. B.A., Tydweiliog.Gwasanaethai fel morwyn Miss Jones, Tyddyn Meirion. Rhiw. ac fel gwas gan Mr. Owen Jones, Pencaenewydd (brawd y priodfab), a Mr.E E. Williams, ysgolfeisir, Bryncroes. Rhoddwyd y briodferch ymaith gan ei thad. Dyma un o briodasau mwyaf poblogaidd Pen Lleyn. Y mae'r briodferoh nid yn unig yn hawddgar, caredig a siriol, ond y mae Mr. Jones ei hunan yn ymgorfforiad o gymwynasgarwch ac o ddyn gwasanaethgar mewn ardal.
Ar wahan i'w ddefnyddioldeb fel Cadeirydd Cyngor Plwyf Aberdaron, ac ysgrifennydd Cyfarfod Ysgol Pen LJeyn am faith flynyddau, nid yn fuan yr anghofia llu mawr o fechgyn ieuainc a rhieni ei ymdrechion ar eu rhan yn yr heldrin fawr ddiweddar ac fel aelod o Bwvllgor Pensiwnau y Milwyr bydd ei ymroddiad a'i wasanaeth iddynt o wir werth eto. Nid rhyfedd felly fod banerau yn lluosog, a'r "saethu" yn diaspedain y fro.
Cyduna pawb o honom ar i'r par ieuanc gael mwynhau oes hir, gysurus mewn llonder a llawnder.
Yr Herald Gymraeg 26/08/1919
A PWLLHELI SLANDER SUIT.
NOVEL POINT IN APPEAL COURT.
A novel point in slander law was considered by Lord Justices Swinfen Eady and Warrington and Mr Justice Bray, in the Court of Appeal, London, yesterday, when Mr Hugh Jones and his wife, Mrs Ellen Jones, both of Cae Engan, Rhoshirwaen, Pwllheli, appealed from a judgment catered by Mr Justice Lush at the suit of Mr David Jones, headmaster of the Llidiardau Council School at Rhoshirwaen, Pwllheli.It appeared that Mr David Jones brought the action in respect of words alleged to have beon spoken in Welsh by Mrs Ellen Jones. and which were translated as meaning, "Have you heard that Mr David Jones is courting with Mrs Ellen Roberts Mrs. Roberts has told me that Mr David Jones had been conducting himself improperly with her.
At the trial at Carnarvon a common jury found
(1) that the words complained of imputed "moral misconduct'' between Mr David Jones and Mrs Roberts;
(2) that the words were spoken of Mr David Jones in the way of his calling i.e. "in such a way as to imperil the retention of his office;
(3) that the words imputed that Mr David Jones was unfit to hold his office.
Further, the jury awarded Mr David Jones £10 damages. Upon these findings Mr Justice Lush entered judgment for the plaintiff, Mr David Jones, for £ 10 and costs. Mr P. A. Greer, K.C. (for the defendants) submitted that there was no evidence that the words complained of were spoken of Mr David Jones in the way of his calling, and that it did not matter whether they were spoken of him in such a way as to imperil the retention of his office.
Lord Justice Warrington: The second question left to the jury is really : Were the words spoken of the plaintiff in such a way as to imperil the retention of his office?
Mr Greer : Yes, and the Judge so intended. He reserved to himself the question of whether on the findings of the jury the plaintiff was entitled to judgment.
Legal argument followed, and the Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain his action, although the speaker of the words complained of did not refer to his being a headmaster, and for aught that appeared on the evidence did not even know that he was one. In this counsel submitted that the Judge was wrong. Mr Montgomery, K.C., for the respondent plaintiff, submitted that the decision of the Judge was right.
The hearing was adjourned.
North Wales Chronicle 03/12/1915
THE PWLLHELI SLANDER SUIT.
DAMAGES AWARD SET ASIDE.
The Court of Appeal, consisting of Lords Justices Swinfen Eady and Warrington and Mr Justice Bray, delivered their reserved judgment yesterday in the appeal by Mr Hugh Jones and his wife, Mrs Ellen Jones, of Cae Engan, Rhoshirwaen, Pwllheli, from a judgment entered by Mr Justice Lush on the findings of a jury in a slander action brought by Mr David Jones, headmaster of the Llidiardau Council School at Rhoshirwaen.Lord Justice Swinfen Eady who delivered the judgment of the court, said the defendant. Hugh Jones, was a labourer. The words complained of were spoken to a Miss Elizabeth Jones, who lived near Pwllheli. Plaintiff's case was that the words complained of were actionable of themselves because they imputed that he was deficient in a quality necessary for a teacher and trainer of youth to possess - namely, correctness and propriety of moral behaviour, which was necessary for a schoolmaster as credit was to a trader.
If the court was at liberty to decide this case on general principles there might, be much to be said for this view. But the law of slander was an artificial law resting on artificial distinctions and refinements. It was well settled that spoken words, although calculated to injure the person of whom they were spoken in his profession, vocation, or calling, but had not spoken of him in the way of his calling, were not, actionable per se.
In this case special damage was not even alleged, and the court thought there was no evidence to leave to the jury as to whether the words were spoken by Mrs Jones of the plaintiff in the way of his calling.
The court thought the appeal should be allowed and judgment entered for the defendants with costs.