LIBEL SUIT.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17807, 5 July 1923, Page 14

LIBEL SUIT.

CLAIM FOR £4OO DAMAGES.

SEAMEN'S SECRETARY SUED. (PBBS3 ASSOCIATIOK TELEGBAH.) WELLINGTON, July 4. The libel action, Alfred Chard, versus William Thomas Young, secretary of the Seamen's Federation, claiming £4OO damages was' continued to-day in the Supreme Court. John Hutcheaon, formerly a vicepresident of the Seamen's Union, said he had never heard of the Jones Union being referred to as a scab union aud could not see how it could be referred to in such terms. It was formed in Wellington in 1898. There arose a political difference with the head office in •Dunedin, and Young, who was a member of the Wellington union, championed the Dunedin body, {subsequently, Young was apponited agent at Wellington for the Federation aud later, a new body was formed with Young as secretary. He rather at Yuiuig'a new union as a scab union. Jbte understood that the Jones Union died out later.

Frederick Howell, assistant secretary of tne Seamen's Federation, gave corroborative evidence and said that there was never any enmity between the two union. The ballot papers for the last election of the Federation should have been sent out some time alter the second Wednesday in February. He was practical.; sure they were not sent out until March.

Plaintiff was cross-examined by counsel for defendant.

You were present at the meeting which set up a commission to investigate the charges made by Young and the charges made by you?— Yes. Before that commission had come to a decision you issued a writ for libel? —Yes. I did not expect much out of the commission. Young objected to the commission.

When you joined the Jones Union did you not know there were two unions?— No. You are familiar with the word "scab" ?—Yet>. :

In the letter to Howell, what do you mean by "emancipation"' P —We expect at some time that the workers will be emancipated. You agree with Walsh?—No.

You were, arrested in 1917? —Yes. You were my counsel. Mr Mazengarb: I object to the question, your Honour, as the case was dismissed.

His Honour: I Bhall certainly not allow a question about a charge that Wa3 dismissed.

Mr OLeary: Tbis year you were a candidate for the secretaryship?— Yes. Don't you think the allegations of "theft" would have a worse effect than the allegations of "scab"? —I never mare any allegations of theft. In opening the case for the defend-: ant, Mr O'Leary said that thecircular was one of qualified privilege issued in self-defence.

. His Honour: What do you eay about that, Mr Mazengarb? Mr Mazengarb: That privilege is attached to the circular itself, and not to extraneous matter in the circular. His Honour said he was inclined to believe that this was a privileged offence, and that malice would have to be proved. This could be done by proving that the charges mad<& were false. Mr O'Leary went on to say that it: was conceded that charges of a serious nature were made by Young prior to January 19fch, when the two men were candidates for the office of secretary, but after that the union had spent two days in discussing matters, and were quite satisfied with Young's explanation. After the finding Young put out his hand, and said that the matter was ended so far as ho was concerned, but after that date he had heard the charges being repeated. He then felt quite justified in issuing the circular. He considered that it was the old question of the Jones union that had ; made Chard spread the charges about his private affairs. He felt quite privileged in sending out the circular dealing with the matter. Counsel submitted that what Young did was in legitimate self-defence, and that the iriforand that there was nothing to prove malice.

James Thorn, editor of the "Maoriland Worker," said that he had known: both men for a number of years. "On March Ist," he said, "1 saw O'Rorke and Chard standing at the corner outside the, Union Clothing Company. O'Rourke beckoned to me. He -wanted to give me some information for the paper, but as soon as I got over Chard poured out a volley of obscene abuse at me because of a conversation that had taken place previously. Chard said that Young was robbing the seamen right and left, that I was in with him, and corrupting unions throughout the country. I left it that." Witness went on to say that he thought that Chard, as president of the union, would have substantiated his charges, but when this was not done he informed Young about the whole matter. The Court adjourned.