NOT LIBEL.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 161, 9 July 1926, Page 9

NOT LIBEL.

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS.

HALL SKELTON V. SEABROOK.

FINISH OF IMPORTANT ACTION.

RIDER BY A JURYMAN.

'•"We are unanimous that there was no libel in the two circulars. One juryman is oi the opinion that while not libel, the language and certain criticism of the plaintiff is to be strongly deprecated." Thus the verdict of the special jury after an hour's deliberation on the Hall Skelton v. Seabrook libel action, which was concluded yesterday afternoon after a two days' hearing. Plaintiff claimed £-5000 damages from the defendant for alleged libel contained in two circulars issued by the latter during the election campaign of 1925, when plaintiff stood as a Nationalist candidate for Roskiil. Sir John Findlay and Mr. G. Metcalfe appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. P. Finlay and Mr. H. M. Rogerson for the defendant. Concluding his address to the jury after the '"Star" went to press, Mr. Finlay said he had covered all the ground except that regarding the damages. What ever Skelton might say he lost through the alleged libellous statements he (counsel) would point out that he himself had elected to tour the country giving lectures and thereby neglecting his practice. The plaintiff had then gone to Paris, and when he returned he naturally found that his large practice had diminished. The libel of 1922 was not to be considered. It ■was only introduced to prove malice. He would suggest that in the name of common sense and patriotism the defendant was entitled to the verdict. Sir John Findlay's Reply. Sir John Findlay opened by stating that he would not attempt to rival Mr. Finlay, either in the length of his address, or vituperation. No good cause was served by hurling against a brother practitioner such words as 'iies" and 'liar.' Time and time again Mr. Finlay had thrown these at an houourable man, and he had no right to so disfigure the profession. The case was a simple one. Skelton was a well-known and ardent supporter of Home Bule in the best Gladstonian interests. In 1921, when the Home Rule Bill was passed, the Eev. Howard Elliott delivered one of his able but vitriolic addresses denouncing the bill. That attack ran violent counter to what Mr. Skelton had been advocating, and he. at the expense of his profession, took the platform to reply to Mr. Elliott. They were asked to take that as the true object of Mr. Skelton taking the platform. He was not there to advocate rebellion or republicanism, but to advocate and help the British Government and Irish people in the adoption of the bill. As far as the speech made in Te Aroha, Sir John pointed out that Mr. Finlay had charged Mr. Skelton with being sympathetic with murderers. Skelton had told them that the report was not a correct one. "I put it to you," said Sir John, "that to characterise Mr. Skelton's self denial as co-operation with rebels and traitors, and as being sympathetic with murderers is most unfair and most unjust. What evidence have you that Skelton ever said anytihing or did anything either in his campaign or as the plaintiff, that you could say he was in sympathy with murderers? Is it thinkable thai a man who takes a special oath of allegiance to his King upon taking up his profession, should endeavour to disrupt the Empire?" They were asked to believe that he took the platform and openly disgraced himself, his profession, and his country by open sympathy to a band of rebels. All that reference to Irish history and Collins had been used by Mr. Finlay as a smoke screen to hide the salient points of the ease. It wae well done, and what was lacking in reason was made up in noise. He would ask them to peruse the documents of alleged libel with a fair mind, and that they would not be poisoned by the rhetoric that had flowed from Mr. Finlay's lips. • Judge's Summing-up. Summing up, his Honor said that after the eloquent and elaborate speeches made by both counsel it was not necessary for him to address the jury at any length. The action was one for libel, and libel constituted the unlawful statement affecting a person and which tends to bring him into the contempt and hatred of his people. In order to be a libel that must be satisfactorily defined. In this particular instance the main plea that the defendant relied on was fair comment. They were entitled to conside* the plaintiff's attitude in regard to the published questions, and also whether his conduct had been provocative of the criticism so levelled. It had to be re"taembered that in a statement he said in effect that he would "smash the P.P.A." If a man used such language he must not be too thin-skinned to take any replies that might be forthcoming. His Honor traversed the contents of plaintiff's speech at Te Aroha, and also the two ;irculars. adding that the jury should ca.-efully peruse them and see if they could spell words of disloyalty in them. For a gentleman of the legal profession, who was out to lecture the public, the plaintiff had displayed a remarkable ignorance of the Irish question. It seemed rather extraordinary that Mr. Skelton did not look on the other side, to give the public a view of both sides. The perens who composed the circulars had a right, his Honor thought, to think that a man who was going through the country lecturing on Irish affairs knew all about the matte ,- . There could be no doubt that the Self-Determination League was opposed to Home Rule. Self-determina-tion in itself meant a right to decide for oneself. Mr. Hull Skelton attended the Paris Conference on behalf of the League, but, strangely enough, he did not know its constitution. He thought it was the v ery opposite to what its name meant. There was no doubt that the plaintiff eulogised Collins. His Honor added that he was afraid that they had spent more time over Collins than over Skelton. Curing the last few years of his life it would be admitted that Collins appeared in a different role to what he did from !916 to 19J8. If the case transgressed the limits of fair comment, then damages should be awarded on the two circulars. If. on the other hand, the jury was not °i that opinion, then, judgment should b e for the defendant. The VeTdict. After the verdict, as given above, his Honor awarded costs against the plaintiff.