to her father, Dr. Travers. The letter complained of ran as follows:--
TOWER, BRAY, May 6th.
Sir, you may not be aware of the disreputable conduct of
your daughter at Bray where she consorts with all the low
newspaper boys in the place, employing them to disseminate
offensive placards in which my name is given, and also
tracts in which she makes it appear that she has had an
intrigue with Sir William Wilde. If she chooses to disgrace
herself, it is not my affair, but as her object in insulting
me is in the hope of extorting money for which she has
several times applied to Sir William Wilde with threats of
more annoyance if not given, I think it right to inform you,
as no threat of additional insult shall ever extort money
from our hands. The wages of disgrace she has so basely
treated for and demanded shall never be given her.
JANE F. WILDE.
To Dr. Travers.
The summons and plaint charged that this letter written to the father
of the plaintiff by Lady Wilde was a libel reflecting on the character
and chastity of Miss Travers, and as Lady Wilde was a married woman,
her husband Sir William Wilde was joined in the action as a
co-defendant for conformity.
The defences set up were:--
First, a plea of "No libel": secondly, that the letter did not bear
the defamatory sense imputed by the plaint: thirdly, a denial of the
publication, and, fourthly, a plea of privilege. This last was
evidently the real defence and was grounded upon facts which afforded
some justification of Lady Wilde's bitter letter.
It was admitted that for a year or more Miss Travers had done her
uttermost to annoy both Sir William Wilde and his wife in every
possible way. The trouble began, the defence stated, by Miss Travers
fancying that she was slighted by Lady Wilde. She thereupon published
a scandalous pamphlet under the title of "Florence Boyle Price, a
Warning; by Speranza," with the evident intention of causing the
public to believe that the booklet was the composition of Lady Wilde
|