ALLEGATIONS OF LIBEL

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26662, 22 February 1952, Page 8

ALLEGATIONS OF LIBEL

article in union

PUBLICATION

COUNSEL TO ADDRESS COURT TO-DAY

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, Feb. 21. Mr T. P. Cleary, defence counsel in what has become known as the Wells libel action, moved in the Supreme Court this afternoon for judgment on the ground of qualified privilege. Evidence for the defence had just ended, and the Chief Justice (Sir Humphrey O’Leary) dismissed the jury until to-morrow morning, when addresses by counsel will be heard. This afternoon the Court heard legal argument on the issues raised by Mr Cleary. In this action, which consolidates two writs, each claiming £2OOO for alleged libel, the plaintiff is Thomas Gilgiore Wells, vice-president of the deregistered New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, and the defendants are seven executive officers of the Federation of Labour. A. W. Croskery. F. P. Walsh, K. McL. Baxter, H. Thompson, P. M. Butler, L. Hadley, and A. W. Fox, the Wellington Labourers’ Union, and McKenzie, Thornton. Cooper, Ltd., printers. Wells is represented by Mr P. C. P. McGavin, and Mr Cleary represents all the defendants except the printers, for whom Mr J. Oakley appears.

Mr Cleary submitted to the Court that the evidence disclosed a clear case of qualified privilege in respect to the two publications in which the alleged libel appeared. He accordingly applied for judgment for the defendants on the ground that the comment was made in the performance of duty and the protection of an interest. Decision on the points raised was reserved. Evidence for Defence Continuing his evidence this morning. Kenneth McLean Baxter, secretary of the Federation of Labour, said that several things influenced the federation in regard to the waterfront dispute. There was the humanitarian aspect in regard to the suffering the strike would cause, and it was felt by the federation that the curtailment of shipment of animal fats to tthe United Kingdom would impose a great and unfair hardship on the people there. To Mr McGavin the witness admitted that circulars sent by the federation to its affiliations were propaganda, but they were objective and not subjective. They were issued with decorum.

Mr McGavin: If not accuracy. The witness: And with accuracy, too. The witness agreed with the statement in the article published in the “Clarion” that the Communists wielded an influence out of all proportion to their numbers. He agreed with Mr McGavin that it was dangerous to underestimate the influence of Communists. Mr McGavin: What do you under«tand by Communist? The witness: A person who consciously or unconsciously is influenced by, or acts on, the dictates of the revolutionary political party in the Kremlin.

The witness told counsel that he did not ridicule the Moscow and East Berlin reference to the waterfront dispute in New Zealand. The Cominform tieup was sufficient to bring that about, he said. The next witness was Peter Michael Butler, secretary of the Wellington Labourers’ Union and one of the defendants, who said that his union had some 3600 members. He admitted that he wrote the article in the “Clarion,” the basis of the two actions now being heard.

Reference to Plaintiff He said that in making reference to the vice-president of the old Waterside Workers’ Union he thought he was referring to Alexander Drennan, an avowed Communist He did not know that Drennan was no longer vice-presi-dent and that he had been succeeded in office by the plaintiff Wells. After the service of the writs in the present action the paper had been at pains to publish a correction and apology, and was very pleased to do so. The witness gave details *of the efforts of the Federation of Labour to avert the waterfront strike*, The witness said he had personally endeavoured to reach a solution of the trouble, and on the morning of February 26. 1951. he had interviewed the leaders of the waterfront. The outcome was most satisfactory, but when he and others returned to a conference that afternoon they found Mr Barnes present and the position had changed. “Barnes threw out his chest,” said the witness, “and told the meeting that if the Government were good enough they would win. Barnes concluded with: ‘lt is a gamble, but it is a gamble we are prepared to take.’” Charles Patrick McKenzie, printer. Sve formal evidence of publication of e alleged libel in the “Clarion,” and the circulation of the paper. ... This ended the evidence for the defence.