LIBEL ALLEGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 49, 28 February 1927, Page 9

LIBEL ALLEGED.

. HOWARD ELLIOTT'S CLAIM. 1 LICENSE TO CARRY REVOLVER WEAPON PRODUUCED IN . COURT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Before Mr. E. Page, S.M., to-day, Howard Elliott, Dominion secretary of the Protestant Political Association, sought to recover £100 from the "New Zealand Critic" newspaper proprietary, printed and published by George W. Slade, Limited, and edited by Maurice Goldsborough, for an alleged libel. Mr. Boys appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Hoggard for the defendant company. It was alleged that a libel was contained in an open letter containing the following:— "(a) Your hip pocket, in which it is believed you carry an automatic revolver "(b) No man is allowed to take the law into his own hands, and no man is justified in carrying an automatic pistol on his person. It is against the law; and "(c) We ask in turn, sir, what sectarian influence, if any, is brought to bear to enable you to carry a pistol, which we refuse to J^lieve."

The statement of claim continues: "It was meant thereby that plaintiff had committed a crime punishable by iniprisonmnet, in illegally carrying a revolver." It was contended that the above statements were false and malicious, and published without lawful justification or excuse. Mr. Boys quoted from the open letter with the object ot showing that the spirit of the article was libellous, and that the three clauses stated were technically so. When counsel proceeded to abuse the paper, Mr. Hoggard objected, saying it was plaintiff's character, not the defendants', that was in question. Mr. Page said he thought counsel was entitled to comment on what was in the paper, but he did not consider the language used suitable to the Court. Mr. Boys, proceeding, said: "Plaintiff does carry a revolver," and he produced a nickel-plated weapon. Mr. Hoggard: Is it loaded? Mr. Boys: No. (Laughter.) He added that the plaintiff, in addition to the usual registration, possessed a. license to carry it about for twelve months. It was a revolver, not an automatic pistol, and it was carried legally under the Arms Act. No license could be obtained to carry an automatic pistol.

Expert evidence was given by L. G. Caldwell that the revolver was more or less useless, as the spring of the hammer was too weak to explode a cartridge. There was no such thing as an automatic revolver. ill'. Hoggard asked for a nonsuit. He read the licenses granted the plaintiff, [ which showed that he had been licensed to carry a revolver since 1021. It was common ground that plaintiff carried a revolver. Counsel proceeded to combat the statements that the passages extracted were defamatory. Mr. Boys said the defendants had dismissed the most serious statement in the letter as irrelevant, the imputation of the use of sectarian influence. He submitted that a reasonable case had been made out. Mr. Page said he would take time to consider the matter of a nonsuit.