ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL

Press, Volume L, Issue 15017, 11 July 1914, Page 3

ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL

MR MeGHEGOR FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr McGregor '•aid that ho would ask the iurv to consider tho scries ol alleged libels on the plaintiff. A libel wns . a writ ton or spoken statement which injured a person and made people think worse of him than before. Iho question was: did thcs-0 statements make people think worse of plaintiff than they ilid before? What wns the reputation of 'plaintiff as a Royal Commissioner.-' Did hi*, as a Cominixsioncr, havo tho opportunity and tho reputation of grinding liis own axe ? Counsel proceeded to review what led up to tho ea*-e and cited the charges against the Merchants' Association, which had been spread broadca.it over tho country. Itwas significant that when the AN ard Administration was in power no steps were taken to investigate the charges mado by Mr Fairbairn. but as soon, as the Mackenzie Government came into power the Commission wan appointed, and Mr Fairbairn placed upon it. After that appointment letters* appeared in the papers, and, coming to tho letters complained of, counsel pointed out tho delay of six months which had taken place after the publication of the alleced libels and the issue of tho writ. Did that delay suggest a man who hurl been foully libelled," and was in a hurry to clean his reputation ? Mr I-airbairn took no steps for six months. Sir John Findlay: Ho instructed his solicitor. __ , ~, Mr McGregor: Yes, but he did nothin-- for six months. That is tho fact. TWO SPECIAL QUESTIONS. Mr McGregor went on to comment upon the action of Mr Fairbairn in remaining quiet about Mr God troy s letters in "The Press" and tho "Times. Was that consistent with his pica ot a much-injured man ? Ho now said he was simply sitting back to see how his oaso against the "Otago Daily limes" vent before he proceeded against the Christchurch papers. _ "Tho two principal points, continled Mr McGregor, "upon which you must decide are: — "(1) "Was Mr Fairbairn properlyjon that Commission or was he not? Wait v proper thing for him to sit on that Commission after tho attitude he had taken up towards the Merchants' Association ? "(2) Was evident*- in fact suppressed from tho official record either with or without the sanction of the witnesses interested?" WAS FAIRBAIRN LIBELLED? Mr McGregor wont on to elaborate these two points by reviewing the cir.umstances and the evidence given. Mr Fairbairn had, he said, brought the trouble entirely upon himself by his non-reply to Mr Godfrey's letters in the Ghrist-hurch papers. In addition to the questions placed above it would have to bo considered' whether, evon if the charges mado were true, Mr Fairbairn was entitled to damages after his extraordinary delay and his inexplicable conduct. Tho paper had acted m accordance with its duty to the public in writing the article of October loth, 1912. Did that article constitute a libel upon tho plaintiff? That article merely properly insisted upon official words being accurate. . It pointed out that the record was not accurate, ana that Bowyer's dvidenco was not complete. This had been done without Bowyer's sanction (which was true) and the article -wound up by sn<™_stin-r "that if these things wero possible, then opportunities were afforded Commissioner-! of making the evidence suit their findings. How did this libel Fairbairn, and why did ho take it as referring to himself.-' WHAT ABOUT THE LETTERS? Coming to tho letters, counsel roviewed taom at length. Tho fir_t letter suggested that Mr Fnirbaini had tho opportunity of grinding hia own axe. Was that not substantially borne out by tho evidenco? Did the ovidenco not show that Mr Fairbairn should not have been upon the Commission P If he had not been on the Commission tha merchants would have given the facts, but because Fairbairn was thero they refused to appear because of the charges lie had made against them. Fairba-ru was the accuser, and yet was sitting in judgment on them, and in, Wellington insisted that tho reasons Mr Skerrett was prepared to advanco should not oo heard. Ho contended that Fair-aim'_ action was not fair and honourable Was it not clear also that ho had! n. violent animus against the Merchants' Association, that he had his mind made up, and that ho was determined to expose them? And yet ho was appointed to the Commission to examine into tL--;* actions. Counsel put it to the jury that to condemn the Merchants' Aesoif these things wero possible, then opject in going on the Com mission. Again ho bad brought tho trouble on himseif by going upon the Commission when he should merely have been a witness. Then did "Merchant's" letter alleging, business reJations between Fairbairn and the Hon. T. Mackenzie, constitute libel? Tho evidence led them to believe that thero wero business friendships between the two men, and it was suspicious that Mr Mackenzie appointed Mr Fairbairn to tho Commission out of the hundreds of general merchants that- thero were in the Dominion. Tho fourth letter had to be read as a whole, and judged whether it was libellous. WHAT DAMAGES? Coming to the question of damage-, counsel suggested that ono farthing would be more suitable than the amount claimed upon each point—£2so. What damage had Mr Fairbairn sustained? Did his friends think any worse of him than before, or his enemies hate him the more? Why did Mr Fairbairn not sue iv Dunedin, where far more copies of the paper were sold than in Christchurch. . , i , Mr Fairbairn had succeeded in making a fortuuo-for himself, j n gpjto of all attacks- His junior partner had been able to retire. lie would suggest that there were two Mr Jj airbairns—Mr Fairbairn. tho philanthropist and econo- "•____, and also. Mr Fairbairn the business man. He haa been able to combine tho two men very effectively, and with much success to himself. SO MORE-ACTIONS. . Commenting on Mr Godfrey's letter in Christchurch, air -lcGre_or said th*. 4 ; Fairbairn had a cause of action.

against Mr Godfrey and also against the Christchurch "Press." Sir John Findlay: He has nothing or the kind. Mr McGregor: He has also a cause of action against tho ''Lyttelton Times." Sir John: He nas not. and does not intend to pursue it. It is a question of law, and you cannot state it as a fact. Mr McGregor closed by suggesting that tho damages given, if any were given should be on a nominal scaie.