The libel action between Miss Janet F. Mayne, the Matron of Limerick County Infirmary, and Mrs. Harriet O’Brien, a member of the Joint Committee of the institution, continued on Monday, drawing significant public interest. The case involved allegations of slanderous remarks, and the jury was tasked with determining the truth of the matter.

The jury reached the following conclusions: (1) the plaintiff did not throw the iodoform, and (2) she was not involved in its throwing. However, they could not come to a unanimous decision regarding whether the defendant had published the alleged words believing them to be true and without malice.

A pivotal moment during the proceedings occurred when Mary Russell, a wardmaid, gave her testimony, revealing crucial information about the incident in question. Russell disclosed that during the incident, one of the individuals in the kitchen threw milk, and another threw the iodoform on Mrs. O’Brien. She asserted that the matron, Miss Mayne, was unaware of the iodoform being thrown, and all the girls present kept it a secret due to their fear of Miss Mayne’s strictness, which was enforced through Mrs. O’Brien’s influence.

During the court session, Miss Mayne was questioned by the Lord Chief Justice, and she disclosed that she now knew who had thrown the iodoform – Mrs. O’Brien. This revelation added a new dimension to the case.

Following a thorough examination of the evidence on both sides, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the question of malice. Despite this, their earlier findings vindicated Miss Mayne, absolving her of any involvement in the alleged iodoform incident.

After an hour of deliberation, the jury returned to the court with a decision in favor of the defendant, Mrs. O’Brien, on the first two questions. As they could not agree on the issue of malice, the case remained unresolved in that regard.

Mr Moriarty, representing the defendant, argued that it was the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove malice, especially since the court had ruled that the occasion was privileged. However, the judge declined to enter a verdict for the defendant, stating that the lady had been vindicated by the jury’s findings.

With the jury’s verdict of no damages and the unresolved question of malice, the proceedings concluded, leaving the matter with no further action to be taken against Mrs. O’Brien. The case’s outcome has significant implications for the individuals involved and sheds light on the importance of careful consideration when making accusations in the public domain.

Limerick Echo – Tuesday 20 June 1905