DAMAGES CLAIMED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 21, 6 November 1935, Page 7

DAMAGES CLAIMED

ALLEGATION OF DEFAMATION,

MUNICIPAL ELECTION SEQUEL.

(Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, November 5.

Based upon an article published in “Why,” a journal devoted, to the advocacy of the Douglas social credit plan, William McLaren (former president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union), in the Supreme Court, claimed from Albert Edward Robinson, editor of the journal, £SOO, alleging defamation of character.

The action came before Mr Justice Callan and a jury.

Mr Haigh and Mr Henry appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Goulding and Mr Sexton for defendant.

Mr Haigh said the action arose out of the publication of an article in the newspaper “Why,” in its issue of April 27, 1935. After stressing the importance of the value of a person’s good character and reputation, Mr Haigh said that the plaintiff, McLaren, had brought the action, to clear his character from imputations contained in tbe article. The article, which extended to two columns, was headed, “Who Should be Mayor of Auckland?” “Is the Labour Party Running a Stumer?”

Mr Haigh said that the the time the article was published, McLaren was president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, and was naturally prominent in industrial matters in Auckland and in the activities of the Labour Party. In these activities he came into contact on occasions with Ernest Davis. Shortly before July 21 of last year there was a Free Speech Courtcil in Auckland and a meeting was held in Beresford Street. Six men were arrested and the question of having the men bailed out arose. McLaren was communicated with and asked to go to the office of Ernest Davis. McLaren went there shortly after noon, and met Davis and two others, Roy Stanley and Fred. Loom. Davis mentioned that the question of bail for the six men had been raised, and a sum. of £3OO was required. He said that Stanley and Loom were unknown to him; but they had approached him and he (Mir Davis) wanted to know if McLaren would accept the money and arrange bail. McLaren demurred at first and he, Stanley, and Loom adjourned to another room to discuss the matter. Stanley and Loom impressed upon McLaren the fact that if the money was not accepted the arrested men would have to remain in gaol oyer the weekend. The three then returned to Davis, and the. £3OO was produced and handed to McLaren.

Municipal Elections. Mr Haigh said the municipal elections were held in April, and there 1 were three candidates, Eimest Davis, J. Sayegh and A. J. Stallworthy. Several candidates were in the ballot conducted by the Labour Party, and they included H. G. R. Mason and Sayegh. Sayegh was successful at the ballot. After the announcement that Sayeh had been selected as the Labour candidate for the Mayoralty, the article which formed the basis of the present action was published. It was not denied that the defendant Robinson, editor of “Why,” had written the article. The article was brought under the notice of,Mr McLaren just after publication. McLaren went to see Robinson and told him the article accused him (McLaren) of bribery and corruption, and was injuring his reputation. Robinson asked what portion of the article did that, and McLaren said the whole of it. “McLaren asked for a public apology, and Robinson replied, ‘That is nothing to what I’ve got on you, said air Haigh. Robinson refused to give an apology. On’June 18, Mr Haigh said, he was instructed by McLaren to write _to Robinson requesting an apology; but it was not forthcoming,and later the present proceedings were Instituted. Mr Haigh said that the word “stumer meant something containing dishonesty and he quoted from a late dictionary which defined “stumer” as a slang word of unknown origin, meaning a sham such as a forged cheque. . His Honor: A stumer, I take it, is a sham—a pretence. Mr Haigh: That is so. His Honor: Supposing the meaning of this article js that the whole Labour Party organised a scheme in putting up a candidate whom they did not expect to win because they considered Davis would be friendly to them in putting up a candidate they did not expect to win, would not that he a political sham? i Mr Haigh : According to tins article there was a sham as far as the leaders of the Labour Party were concerned The article implies that there was no intention to put Sayegh m as Maym , but so far as the rank and file oi the Labour Party were concerned, the whole thing was bona fide, therefore the leaders were misleading the ran and fil*.

Casa for the Plaitntiff. Counsel said that McLaren had taken the money, but had j oulld , two of the arrested men had been bailed out on the Monday The £IOO not required was leturned by McLaren to Davis snteequenUy, when the men had been 'dealt wit by the court. McLaren retailed the balance of £3OO to Bams. no question at any time of McLaiens retaining any of the money. The article suggested that the Labour pinty had put np Sayegh as its candidate, knowbig that he had no chance of being elected and to ensure the election oi Davis, who would be friendly to the P McLaren gave evidence of making bail arrangements for the men conSrned in the Free Speech Council meeting, and said the money was returned to Davis, who said he had been approached about the matte . After the article appeared, it was necessary to call a special meeting or the Waterside Workers’ Union for witness to explain the position. Thounion then stood by Ms actions; but he felt that the contents of the article ai-

feeted his status when be was defeated in July as president of tbe organisation. j , Cross-examined, the plaintiff denied that he had been principally concerned with a. statement attributed to him about “communists. This was untrue, as was also a statement attributed to Davis about not caring whether the money was lost. Robinson claimed that he had no intention of injuring the witness. McLaren added that he did not have a vote in tbe Labour ballot. The selection was in the hands of tbe delegates to the Labour Representation Committee. He said there bad been a hue and cry” when it was known that Sayegh had topped tbe selection ballot, and there were inquiries trom headquarters in Wellington. His Honor: They came up to say, “What you been doing to Mason?” Mr Goulding: Had there been a Mayoral contest between Mason and Sayegh alone, what would your view of”the result be? i , Witness: It would all depend whu had the official backing of the Labour party, the machine. The witness said he was aware that “Why” was published in the interests of the Douglas Credit movement; but he was not far advanced in the opinions of the movement. His Honor: If we could get an expert in the stand to explain the system, I would listen to him. The witness agreed that the purpose of the paper was to attack those persons commanding money.

“Under a Cloud.” * Evidence was given by two waterside workers that the article caused considerable comment about the plaintiff. and one thought lie had been “somewhat under a cloud” on the waterfront. Mr Goulding moved for a noivsuit on the grounds that the words in the ordinary sense were not defamatory of the plaintiff personally, and that the innuendoes alleged were not natural, reasonable, or necessary inferences to be drawn. His Honor said any suggestion of an inference that the plaintiff received bribes could not be supported, and Mr Haigh agreed to withdraw this allegation. Prefacing the evidence for the defence, Mr Goulding said it had to lie shown for the claim that the article actually pointed toward McLaren in the way suggested. There was also the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest. The defendant, Albert Edward Robinson, secretary to the Auckland provincial branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, said McLaren first approached him as a. fellow unionist, and claimed that the article would put an end to his industrial career. The witness then said he had kept from the article material which might have been injurious to the plaintiff, and he contended that the eomplants were not about the truth of the article. No apology was demanded, although the witness offered to give what satisfaction he could.

Cross-examined, Robinson said be considered that there was corruption in politics in New Zealand, and he liad written articles to that effect. Asked what his “fierce suspicions” were, he said they were' that the Labour party was “running a stumer” in the election • hut should the party have tried to get Davis in as Mayor that would be its own business. His meaning was that some of the Labour people wanted Mason out of the way. His suspicions were not convictions; but one suspicion was that a majority of the party preferred Davis to Sayeth as Mayor. He thought the Trades Hall ran the Labour party, meaning the leaders. The rank and file might not know Sayegh was not wanted as Mayor The case was adjourned.’