£500 DAMAGES CLAIMED

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21623, 6 November 1935, Page 8

£SOO DAMAGES CLAIMED

—«— AUCKLAND MAYORAL ELECTION

ALLEGED DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER FORMER UNION PRESIDENT AS PLAINTIFF ffRESS ASSOCIATION TEI.F.ORAM.I AUCKLAND, November 5.

Based upon an article published in "Why," a journal devoted to the advocacy of the Douglas social credit plan, William McLaren, former president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, in the Supreme Court claimed from Albert Edward Robinson, editor of the journal, £SOO, alleging defamation of character. The action came before Mr Justice Callan and a jury. ; Mr Haigh and Mr Henry appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Goulding and Mr Sexton for the defendant. I Mr Haigh said the action arose out i of the publication of an article in i the newspaper "Why," in its issue ot j April 27. 1935. A ter stressing the I importance of the value of a persons I good character and reputation, Mr iHr : "h said that the plaintiff McLaren had" brought the action to clear his character from imputations contained in the article. The article, which extended to two columns, was headed, "Who Should be Mayor of Auckland?"; "Is the Labour Party Running a Stumer?" Mr Haigh said that at the time the article was published, McLaren was president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, and was naturally prominent in • industrial matters in Auckland and in the activities of the Labour pariy. In these activities he came into contact on occasions with Ernest Davis. Shortly before July 21 of last year there was a Free Speech Council in Auckland, and a meeting was held in Beresford street. j Six men were arrested and the quesj tion of having the men bailed out arose. McLaren was communicated with, and asked to go to the office of Ernest Davis. McLaren went there shortly after noon, and met Davis and I two others, Roy Stanley and Fred. Loom. Davis mentioned that the question of bail for the six men had been ruised. and a sum of £3OO was required. He said that Stanley and Lccm were unknown to him; but they had approached him and he (MiDavis) wanted to know if McLaren would accept the m*>ncy and arrange bail. McLaren demurred at first, and j he, Stanley, and Loom adjourned to I another room to discuss the matter. | Stanley and Loom impressed upon McI Larcn the fact that if the money was ! not accepted the arrested men would 'have to remain in gaol over the vveekI end. The three then returned to Davis, and the £3OO was produced and handed to McLaren. Municipal Elections j Mr Haigh sain the municipal elecj tions were held in April, and there were three candidates, Ernest Davis, J. Sayegh, and A. J. Stallworthy. Several candidates were in the ballot conducted by the Labour party, and they included H. G. R. Mason and Sayegh. Mr Sayegh was successful at the ballot. Ai'ier the announcement that Sayegh had been selected as the Labour candidate for the Mayoralty, the article which formed the basis of the present I action was published. It was not i denied that the defendant Robinson. I editor of "Why," had written the article. The article was brought under the notice of McLaren just after publication. McLaren went to see Robinson and told him the article accused him (McLaren) of bribery and corruption, and was injuring his reputation. Robinson asked what portion of the article did that, and McLaren said the whole of it. "McLaren asked for a public apology, and Robinson replied, 'That is no.hing to what I've got oil you.'" said Mr Haigh. Robinson refu. :d to give an apology. On June 18, Mr Haigh said, he was instructed by McLaren to write to Robinson requesting an apology; but it was not forthcoming, and later the present proceedings were instituted. Mr Haigh said that the word "stumer" meant something containing dishonesty, and he quoted from a late dictionary which defined "stumer" as a slang word of unknown origin, meaning a sham such as a forged cheque. His Honour: A stumer, I take it, is a sham—a pretence. Mr Haigh: That is so. His Honour: Supposing the meaning of this article is that the whole Labour party organised a scheme in putting up a candidate whom they did not expect to win, because they considered Davis would be friendly to them in putting up a candidate they did not expect to win, would not that be a political sham? Mr Haigh: According to this article there was a sham as far as the leaders of the Labour party were concerned. The article implies that there was no intention to put Sayegh in as Mayor; but so far as the rank and file of the Labour party were concerned the whole thing was bona fide, therefore the leaders were misleading the rank and file. Case for the Plaintiff Counsel said that McLaren had taken the money, but had found that two of the arrested men had been bailed out on the Monday morning. The £IOO not required was returned by McLaren to Davis subsequently, when the men had been dealt with by the court. McLaren returned the balance of £2OO to Davis. There was no question at any time of McLaren's retaining any of the money. The article suggested that tnc Labour party had put up Sayegh as its candidate, knowing that he had no chance of being elected, and to ensure the election of Davis, who would be friendly to the party. McLaren gave evidence of making bail arrangements for the men concerned in the Free Speech Council meeting, and said the money was returned to Davis, who said he had been approached about the matter. After the article appeared, it was necessary to call a special meeting of the Waterside Workers' Union for witness to explain his position. The union then stood by his actions; but he felt that the contents of the article affected his status when he was defeated in July as president of the organisation.

Cross-examined, the plaintiff denied uiat he had been principally concerned with a statement attributed to him about "communists.*' This was untrue, as was also a statement attributed to Davis about not caring whether the money were lost. Robinson claimed that he had no intention of injuring the witness. McLaren added that he did not have a vote in the Labour ballot. The selection was in the hands of the delegates to the Labour Representation Committee. He said tuere had been a "hue and cry" when it was known that Sayegh. had topped the selection ballot, and there were enquiries from headquarters in Wellington. His Honour: They came up to say, "What have you been doing to Mason?"

Mr Goulding: Had there been a Mayoral contest between Mason and Sayegh alone, what would your view of the result be? Witness: It would all depend who had the official backing of the Labour party, the machine. The witness said he was aware that "Why" was published in the interests of the Douglas credit movement; but he was not far advanced in the opinions of the movement. His Honour: If we could get an expert in the stand to explain the system, I would listen to him. The witness agreed that the purpose of the paper was to attack those persons commanding money. "Under a Cloud" Evidence was given by two waterside workers that the article caused considerable comment about the plaintiff, and one thought he had been "somewhat under a cloud" on the waterfront. Mr Goulding moved for a non-suit on the grounds that the words in the ordinary sense were not defamatory of the plaintiff personally, and that the innuendoes alleged were not natural, reasonable, or necessary inferences to be drawn. His Honour said any suggestion of an inference that the plaintiff received bribes could not be supported, and Mr Haigh agreed to withdraw this allegation. Prefacing the evidence for the defence, Mr Goulding said it had to be shown for the claim that the article actually pointed toward McLaren in the way suggested. There was also the defence of fair comment on a matter of Dublic interest. The defendant, Albert Edward Robinson, secretary to the Auckland provincial branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, said McLaren first approached him as a fellow unionist, and claimed that the article would put an end to his industrial career. The witness then said he had kept from the article material which might have been injurious to the plaintiff, and he contended that the complaints were not about the truth of the article. No apology was demanded, although the witness offered to give what satisfaction he could. Cross-examined, Robinson said he considered that there was corruption in politics in New Zealand, and he had written articles to that effect. Asked what his "fierce suspicions" were, he said they were that the Labour party was "running a stumer" in the election; but should the party have tried to get Davis in as Mayor that would be its own business. His meaning was that some of the Labour people wanted Mason out of the way. His suspicions were not convictions; but one' suspicion was that a majority of the party preferred Davis to Sayer'h as Mayor. He thought the Trades Hall ran the Labour party, meaning the leaders. The rank and file might not know Sayegh was not wanted as Mayor. The case w;:s adjourned.