LIBEL CLAIM AT AUCKLAND

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 69, Issue 49, 7 December 1948, Page 4

LIBEL CLAIM AT AUCKLAND

Newspaper and Mayor Sued ACTION BY DRAINAGE LEAGUE PRESIDENT

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, December 6. Andrew Charles Allum, merchant and Mayor of Auckland, and Wilson and Horton, publishers of the “New Zealand Herald,” are the defendants in a claim for alleged libel, which opened in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Northcroft and a special jury. The hearing is expected to occupy a week. The plaintiff is Dove Myer Robinson, company manager and president of the Auckland and Suburban Drainage League, who claims from each defendant £SOO general damages. Mr Trevor Henry and Mr A. K. Turner are appearing for the plaintiff, Mr A. K. North, K.C., and Mr 11. J. Butler for Allum, and Mr C. P. Richmond for Wilson* and Horton, Ltd. The claim is based on a statement by Allum, published in the ’’Herald” oil the eve of last year’s municipal elect ions, criticising a circular issued by the Drainage League. It. is submitted that the words meant that the plaintiff was responsible for issuing a circular containing untrue statements and false implications calculated to alarm the public unnecessarily, and that the plaintiff was a party to a flagrant attempt to interfere improperly with responsible public men, was guilty of a wicked action, was without a sense of responsibility, and was actuated by some ulterior motive.

It is also submitted that the plaintiff was greatly injured in character and reputation, and was brought, into hatred, ridicule and contempt. The defence denies that the words were published falsely or maliciously, or that they were published concerning the plaintiff. It holds that they did not bear any of the meanings alleged and that they were true, fair comment, without malice, and in the public interest. In his opening address, Mr Henry said Allum had been chairman of the Drainage Board since its inception in 1944, and Robinson had been president of the Drainage League since March, 1946. After reading the article which contained the passage complained <pf, Mr Henry said the words would be a reflection on anyone’s character. The first defence was that the words did not refer to Robinson, but there would be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that they hit at Robinson. His name was mentioned early in the article and it was well kriown that he had been prominent in drainage matters. It was also Stated in the defence that the words were not defamatory and that they were true in substance and in fact. Another defence was that they were fair comment. Mr Henry said they were not comment, but were charges of a base nature. Plaintiff had done no more than exercise his right of free speech. Thg hearing was adjourned.