ALLEGED LIBEL.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 37, 9 March 1922, Page 2

ALLEGED LIBEL.

EX-COUWCIMiOR CLAIMS £SSO. CASE FROM WAITEMATA. PLAINTIFF CROSS-EXAMINED. (Continued from page 8.) Under cross-examination this morning plaintiff explained why the cheques for the timber appeared in hi? eon's name. He said that if he bought it in the name of the council he would have had to pay the council rates, but by buying in his son's name he effected a saving. He explained the matter to the auditor who was satisfied. The supply was by his son, and the auditor and engineer settled with the son. He was not prepared to say how the cheque came into his own Recount. Witness denied ever having told the engineer that he would make a refund of part of the money spent on the road through his property. His gift of the park wae not in consequence of the ineietence of the NaHve Minister. He did not remember receiving a letter asking when lie intended to dedicate it. He admitted, having received a letter from Mr. Jennings suggesting that an area of 12 acres on which the meeting house stood should be reserved for the natives. He did not admit that all the natives wanted the land reserved. The Minister made the representations because of what the Maoris had told him; he had not heard witness' eide of the story. THE STRIP OF LAND. He was not surprised to know that the strip of land leading to the reserve, along the beach, etill stood in his name. He had asked the county clerk to assist him in getting the marine department to dedicate the road. Honor: Has it never been done?— No, but through no fault of mine. His Honor: The only access to the reserve is over the standing in your name then, and anyone lining it is trespass ing. In 1921, he continued, the Council wanted to take the land (giving access to the wharf) under the Public Works Act. They wanted to seize the whole piece. To this he objected, but instructed his solicitors that he was prepared to give the part necessary to give access to the wharf. He desired to keep a piece in order to get the shell for him. self. The Council said they wanted this for a road, but witness contended the real reason was so that they could get binding for the road. BENEFITS FROM THE COUNCIL. Never at any time had he obtained personal benefit from his connection with the Waitemata County Council. Work that a county employee did for him was paid for out oft-witness'.own pocket. It wae on two wet days, when the employee was not working, that he employed him. Mr. Moody: I)id you use the county horses on the job?— Witness replied in the affirmative, but contended he adequately compensated the Council and was not beholden to them for a penny. Some of the county metal had been used on his private road. The Council, -witness contended, had established a precedent in the case of a Takapuna man, and they consented, in open Council, to his (request that a road leading from his property to the main road be metalled.

Re-examined by Mr. Singer as to what he thought was intended by the heading "Magnanimous," McLeod, witness said it was a elur at him in respect of his conduct in the Council. He had refused £20 an acre for the land offered as a park. This area had been dedicated as a public reserve prior to the publication of the article. The land could not be dedicatee' until the Government had given its approval, and there was much correspondence between the Department, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and himself on the subject. A trip to Wairoa to obtain timber for the bridge lefet him £5 out of pocket. He did not make any claim for this. He was always prepared to accede to a deed of dedication for the strip of land from the road to the reserve as a marine reserve—the purpose for which he offered it, but it was never submitted to him. This concluded plaintiff's case. EVIDENCE FOE DEFENCE. Mr. Moody, in opening the case for the defence, asked what was the raal reason for delay in bringing the action. Plaintiff had given several, but counsel contended that the real reason was because, in the course of time, evidence which might help the defendant might be dissipated. To him the substance of Mr. MoLeod's objections to the artk-Ie was that it ridiculed him, but every man who Contested public positions, said Mr. Moody, laid himself open to ridicule. Taking the highest estimate of what the property had actualy cosi !Mr. McLeod, counsel contended, after eight years, sold it at move than ten times tins cost. Yet plaintiff said the road had depreciated the value of his property. Mr. Moody claimed that the substance of his client's article was substantially true. Discussing the expenditure of the loan money he said, "We claim that the loan money, 'being raised for a specific purpose—that of improving the old road—it could not be used for expenditure on a new road." Regarding the strip of land, the present position wa« that anybodj- who used it was trespassing on Mr. Melx-od's' property. He proposed to call officials of the Waitcmata County Council to show that it was alwaj-g understood that the piece of beach was to (be included in the gift which was to give access to the park. His Honor, in response- to a query from Mr. Moody, ruled that the . ct-arfon was one on which a newspaper v as justified in making comment. DEFENDANT GIVES EVIDENCE. Wiliiam Morton, giving evidence, detailed the steps taken to check the accuracy of the allegations in the article. In the interest of the public he thought Mr. MeXeod should be kept out of the council, as he considered the ex-councillors actions had not been straight. He regarded the 'X.Z. Sun" as the official organ of the Waitemata County Council. To 'Mr. Singer: He was not assisted financially by anyone in rtfnning the paper, and wrote the article himself. There was nothing unfair in placing an account of a farm labourers claim againot Mr. McLeod, at t?he Helensville Court, in proximity to the article complained of. Edgar Aitkenhead. who defeated Mr. MeLeod for the Mairetahi Riding in 1017 and 1020, said that the park, without the whole strip of land, including the beach, was of little value as a park. From an agricultural point of view he would not like to give more tthan fl an acre for it. To a certain extent it was the council's fault that the park had not been dedicated. One of the planks of his election platform was to inquire into the controversy that had arisen over the gift. He wired to Wellington to have the matter held over ppndinc an investigation tv a Mr Wright. ' i

His Honor: In your opinion, has tit construction of the road through ilr. McLeod's property enhanced its value?— Oh! decidedly. Gerald Jackson, for 16 years engineer to the Waitemata County Council, stated that the road was made at plaintiffs suggestion. Mr. McLeod must have euggested it, for there was realvl no reason that would make witness suggest it. It would eventually come into the scheme of settlement for ttie district. Mr. McLeod was at that time member for the riding. Witness had once mentioned to plaintiff that loan money should not be expended on the road. It was improper expenditure, because the road was not even a paper road when the loan was raised. Mr. McLeoj said that if the sale of the Aotearoa block came off he would consider making a refund. This offer was made some time in 1914, after the cost of constructing the road had been paid. The case is proceeding.