SIXTH DAY OF £13,500 LIBEL ACTION

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29060, 24 November 1959, Page 16

SIXTH DAY OF £13,500 LIBEL ACTION

Walsh Cross-Examined For Four Hours (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 23. The president of the Federation of Labour, Fintan Patrick Walsh, denied in the Supreme Court at Wellington today that he had threatened to have a Sydney gunman “bump off” Mr J. H. Dunn, a Wellington solicitor. Mr Dunn is appearing for Anthony Joseph Neary, union secretary, in his claim for a total of £13,500 damages for alleged libel by Walsh and seven others. Later, in re-examination, Walsh told his senior counsel, Mr E. D. Blundell, that the allegation was too ridiculous for words and he was surprised that Mr Dunn should have asked the question. Walsh also denied that he had a former member of the Seamen’s Union “beaten up” in the Wellington Trades Hall. Walsh said in response to Mr Dunn’s question that 35 years ago he was a Communist, but later he told Mr Blundell that he was now the most effective opponent of the Communist Party in this country. Walsh was cross-examined by Mr Dunn for four hours.

Walsh, from whom Neary is claiming £lO,OOO damages, is the principal defendant. The others, from whom a total of £3500 is claimed, are the vicepresident and six members of the management committee of the Wellington Trades Council. Neary, secretary of the North Island Electrical Workers’ Union, claims that in consequence of a document falsely and maliciously published or caused to be published by the defendants he had been seriously injured in character, reputation and in his employment. He alleges that the document accused him of perjury when giving evidence in a libel claim against the “People’s Voice.” The hearing is before Mr Justice McGregor and a jury of 12.

Continuing his evidence in chief, Walsh said that at the meeting of the trades council on May 27, in the course of his remarks he referred to a letter he had written to Allen on May 21 and Allen's reply. He read both letters before reading the report complained of. The purpose of his doing so was to show the meeting that Allen was also surprised when he read in the press Neary’s statement in Court that Fenton and Walsh were opposed to the filing of a wage order. Alien’s letter said he was also concerned at Neary’s evidence.

When Mr Blundell asked Walsh what meaning he took from Allen’s letter, his Honour questioned the relevancy of it His Honour said the jury were entitled to decide the meaning of words in an alleged libel, and both sides were entitled to call evidence as to the meaning. But the letter, being something outside the actual libel, must speak for itself., Walsh was entitled to give evidence as to the explanation he gave to the meeting. In reply to Mr Blundell, Walsh said no exception was taken by Neary to the wording of Allen’s letter. Notice of Writ

Walsh said the first he knew of the present action was when he was in Christchurch appearing at the inquiry into the fire on the Holmburn, and he saw big headlines in the press to the effect that he had been served with a writ by Neary for the sum of £lO,OOO. He did not receive confirmation of this until some days after his return to Wellington. Walsh said that if he had had a previous letter calling on him to make amends, or something of that nature, and had been informed that the reports of Neary’s evidence conveyed a wrong impression, he would have done something about it He would have taken steps to investigate the position on that basis.

Mr Blundell: And if you had found that the impression conveyed was wrong, would you have done something to rectify what had just happened? Walsh: If Neary was prepared to say the statements he made in Court about Fenton and myself were wrongly reported, and if he said he didn’t intend that meaning to be taken put of the words, I would immediately have taken steps to arrange for a public statement which would clarify the position of Fenton and myself. Did you know a letter had been sent to the other defendants’— While in Christchurch, Mrs Clark rang me and told me she had received a letter from Mr Dunn. She asked me if I had received a like letter and I said I had not. I advised her to go to a solicitor. Attitude to Colleagues Walsh said it was untrue that the other defendants had signed the report because they were afraid of displeasing him. He said he had been associated with Fenton for many years in the Federation of Labour, but Fenton was in no way dependent on him. He had repeatedly disagreed with Fenton at fortnightly meetings. At some time or other, he had disagreed with every member of the executive.

Wathey had been associated with the waterside workers' movement for a great many years. During the 1051 strike. Walsh took an attitude contrary to the watersiders and. as a result, there bad been considerable bitterness in the trade union movement. Wathey was not the type of person likely to sign a document just because Walsh told him to. Asked why action was taken in the form of a report. Walsh said this was done to counter very wide publicity that had been given through the press to Neary’s statement in his action against the “People’s Voice.” The committee felt that Walsh naa been placed in a very false

position as the advocate for the wage and salary earners in support of the wage order application already filed. Because of the importance of the matter to the movement, it was considered the report should be a written one. Walsh said that between the times of reading the press reports of Neary’s evidence and signing the report, he had no direct communication with Neary because, at the annual meeting in October, 1958, relationships between Neary and himself were not friendly. For that reason he felt Neary was under an obligation, not only to Walsh, but to the movement if he had any objection to the statements appearing in the press, to rectify it himself. Relations With Neary Walsh denied he was concerned in any way in the part he shared in the report to vent any ill-will he mignt have had for Neary. On matters affecting his own union and the handling of. its affairs, he had been very favourably disposed towards Neary. He was qot now favourably disposed towards Neary. He was not favourably disposed towards his conduct at meetings of the trades council and the management committee. Walsh said he had attended a meeting of the council since the one on May 27. Neary was present The meeting was reasonably orderly and got through most of the business. On May 28 Walsh said he made a public statement in the Arbitration Court to the effect that Neary’s evidence was wrong. He took advantage of the opportunity the Court gave him to remove the untrue statement about Fenton and himself. He was concerned to give it wide publicity, because a number of people in the trade union movement had approached him, and particularly because of the remarks of one solicitor who wanted to know whether he was “soft-pedalling.” Copies Distributed Walsh agreed he handed copies of the report to press representatives in the Arbitration Court to give them an opportunity of checking the statement he had made in the Court. He wanted to ensure that his remarks in Court were reported accurately. He did not think any newspaper would publish the statement he handed to the reporters. Before Neary came to New Zealand, said Walsh, he knew nothing about his history. He denied saying to Neary at a meeting: “I know your history.” At that particular meeting, Herlihy and Macleod introduced matters about the Budget and the unfairness of the application of the P.A.Y.E. system to those receiving less than £lO4O a year. There was considerable heat in the discussion between Neary and Nolan on the one hand, and Herlihy and Macleod on the other. Walsh said he endeavoured to keep order. Neary lost control of himself and became abusive. Walsh advised him to calm himself, and told him he was a young man who did not understand the subject matter under discussion. Walsh said he was not aware that copies of the notes of evidence in the “People’s Voice” case had been circulated. He took no part in their circulation and gave no instructions about it. He denied falsely telling the trades council that one James Neale was in favour of the report. Press Leakages Referring to Napier’s use of the word “rats’’ at a council meeting in November, 1958. Walsh said the subject under discussion was press leakages, and the fact that the then secretary, Scott, had stated he knew a person, who was present who had given information to “Truth.'* Napier referred to the “rats that are among us.’’

Four or five delegates jumped to their feet and vigorously complained about the use of the

words “rats.” Neary then raised a point of ordei - in which he asked that Walsh direct Napier to withdraw the remark. Walsh ruled against the point of order because Napier had not named anyone. Napier carried on, and five or six delegates jumped to their feet again, and Napier said: “If the cap fits, you wear it,” and “they all flopped down on their seats.” Cross-examination by Mr Dunn began about 11.15 a.m. Mr Dunn: What did you tell us your name was? Walsh: Fintan Patrick Walsh. What is your true name?— Patrick Tuohy. I was christened that. Was Patrick Tuohy a Communist? —I was. Do you say at this moment that you are in favour of an application for a wage order? —No. You are opposed?—Because the law is against it. So you are opposed to going for a wage order now?—The Stabilisation Regulations set out certain conditions. Wage Claim Timing Was there one point of time in the year 1958 when you could say: “I am in favour of filing now?"—Yes. Immediately we made representations to the Minister of Labour to amend the regulations empowering the Arbitration Court to incorporate the 18 per cent, in the schedule of rates. His Honour: But that was in February, 1959? Walsh: No. We had a deputation to the Minister on October 13 or 15, 1958. Mr Dunn: Were you then prepared to file an application? Walsh: Provided the Minister agreed to amend the regulations. Did he?—No. So you were not then prepared to file?—No. His Honour: Is it fair to put it that you were not in favour of filing the application until you got the regulations amended? Walsh: Yes. His Honour: Were the regulations amended about April, 1959? Walsh: Yes. Mr Dunn: That is the first occasion when you said: “We will file now?” Walsh: That is exactly right. So in October, 1958, you were opposed to filing an application? —Until we got the regulations amended. Then is the answer to my question “yes”?—Until we got the regulations amended. Walsh said he had handled a number of disputes for Neary, both directly and indirectly. He handled a major one for him in the Hutt Valley. It was referred to Walsh by Neary in the first place during a national council conference. He succeeded in getting a complete settlement of the dispute. It took two months or more to settle it. Mr Dunn: Do you remember telling Neary that he had better go and get his b — cobber Butler to fix it? Walsh: I am certain I never used those words. You say you never use language of that type?—l didn’t use that language I suggest that after that incident you never, in fact, handled any disputes for Neary?—He conferred with me on many occasions after that concerning disputes in his own union. I don’t know whether I was directly brought into the dispute or not. Was it about this time that nominations for the International Labour Organisation were called for?—l can't answer that exactly. Voted For Neary In 1957, Neary was nominated? —Yes, to the best of my knowledge. Did you express strong opposition to that?—No. I voted for him. In July, 1958, you predicted that the price index would rise to 7 per cent, above its previous level by September?—That’s right. In fact, it rose by 7.7 per cent.? —Yes.

You told us that, at that stage, you were pressing for the filing of a wage application?—Correct. Whom were you pressing?—l was making a statement to our whole movement. I was placing the facts before our movement and the necessity of recovering our lost standard of living. You remember informing delegates or councillors that it would have been better industrially and politically if the Prime Minister had not gone to Japan?—Words to that effect. My explanation is that there was seething discontent within our movement at that time, and, ’ in my opinion, it was more important that the matters we were bringing before the Government should be finalised before the Prime Minister went to Japan. Then did you say: “We’ll be

accused of wrecking the country?’’—Yes. If we took direct action to force the Government to amend the regulations, it would have a similar effect on the economy of the country as the watersiders’ dispute in 1951.

In reply to a further question Walsh said he felt it would be the better of two alternatives to file an application than for unions to take direct action themselves. Walsh said that by direct action he meant the workers themselves would have pressed the matter. There would have been strike actions throughout the country. Mr Dunn: And Neary said: “You’ll have to go ahead with the application?” Walsh: He never made that statement. Was that his attitude, in effect?—No. The opposite. Motion on Filing But, in October, Neary did press to have an application filed?—At a certain date in October, he did At the annual meeting of the trades council, for the first time to my knowledge, he pressed for filing an application. He seconded a resolution. And he refused to withdraw the motion?—lt was withdrawn. Are you sure of that? —Yes. Would you look at the minutes of that meeting? Doesn’t it suggest the motion was never withdrawn? —Actually, the mover said he desired to withdraw the motion. And Neary refused to agree?— I won’t deny he said that. His Honour: At that time, Neary was advocating an immediate application? Walsh: At that meeting, for the first time. Mr Dunn: But that was the period of which Neary was speaking when he gave evidence in the “People’s Voice” case? Walsh: I think it was later. Wasn’t Neary giving evidence about the election? —No, I can’t say that he was. At the August meeting of the management committee, it was decided to invite the Prime Minister to address the council. The voting was 3-3. Votes Recorded But the minutes say you could not decide on the voices? —lt was quite clear who the three were. I think I asked them all to record their votes. But you and Thompson didn’t obey your own request?—Correct, It was unnecesssary for me. to record a vote. His Honour: Did you on this occasion favour inviting the Prime Minister? Walsh: Yes. If I had had to cast my vote I would have favoured inviting him. Mr Dunn: So you were with Neary on this? Walsh: Yes. All your evidence about a dispute at that meeting is incorrect?—No. Vas there a dispute between you and Neary on this issue? — Not on the Prime Minster issue. The issue was my criticism of the Budget and its effect on wage and salary earners. Was that issue before the meetini; on this occasion?—Yes. Is there anything in the minutes relating to that?—l don’t see if in the minutes. They are just skeleton minutes really. They are incorrect. Press Committee Mr Dunn referred Walsh to the minutes of the meeting of the management committee of September 22. That was the occasion he told Neary to be calm. It arose over the charge made against Walsh by Neary and Nolan of not putting a report in the press about the reception Mr Nash received when he addressed the August meeting of the council. Mr Dunn: But that had nothing to do with embarrassing the Government? That wasn’t the occasion on which Neary accused you of embarrassing the Government? Walsh: Yes. it was. His Honour: Didn’t I understand you to say. a moment ago. that no report of Mr Nash’s reception had got into the newspapers according to Neary? Walsh: Yes. Mr Dunn: That was the occasion when you passed a resolution that a press committee be set up to consist of yourself, Fenton and the secretary? Walsh: Yes.

And in the absence of one, the other two might make a statement to the press?—Yes. Why was Neary told to be calm, and that he didn’t know what he was talking about?—This discussibn caused considerable heat between other members of that management committee Were you heated?—l had a certain amount of heat because of Neary’s charges against me. 1 admit I wasn’t cold. How did jnatters become heated?—l was accused of preventing a statement from being published in the press. You told us you thought Neary overdid it in moving a flowery

motion of thanks to the Prime Minister?—l think it was quite unnecessary to move a resolution after the,one I moved had been carried.

Did you dislike his resolution? —ln my opinion, it wasn’t a factual resolution because of what had happened as a result of the Budget. His Honour: You didn’t like too much kudos being handed out to the Prime Minister? Walsh: I don’t think his resolution was justified on the facts. Mr Dunn: Isn’t all this flowery resolution your own resolution moved at the previous conference? Walsh: The bulk of it is mine dealing with the economic side. You thought it an appropriate time to express confidence in the Government?—No. I felt we shouldn't deny the facts, or what was happening in the country. Mr Dunn asked Walsh if he agreed there were two sets of candidates in the trades council election.

Walsh: There certainly was. You agree that Allen and Neary were the leaders of one set?—To a degree. They were not the real leaders. The real leader did not put his name on the ballot. It was Butler. The statements in Neary’s evidence in the “People’s Voice” case were correct in so far as they stated that they were opposing me and Fenton. “I think that Neary did me a grave injustice, and also Fenton, when he stated that he was the leader of a group that favoured a wage order,” said Walsh. Rang Counsel Mr Dunn: You told us you decided to ring Mr Haigh, the Communist Party’s ... His Honour: No, no, Mr Dunn. You must not say that. You can say the counsel for the “People’s Voice.” Walsh: Is it a crime to act for anyone? His Honour: No, it is not a crime to act for anyone, and Mr Haigh was acting for the “People’s Voice,” within his rights, and within his duty, as a barrister of this Court. Walsh said he had rung Haigh and he fully confirmed the interpretation Walsh had placed upon Neary’s evidence. To get the notes of evidence he had approached the secretary of the Drivers’ Union—a Mr Bailey. After Neary’s evidence he was annoyed, because he felt he had been placed in a false position. The management committee members had no doubts about his views. Mr Dunn: Did you tell that meeting of the management committee that you were out to get Neary? Walsh: I did not tell that to the meeting or any meeting. Instructions on Report To other questions, Walsh said the preparation of the report was put in hand by Mrs Clark on his instructions. He told her to follow the notes of evidence, to deal with the points that “we knew to be untrue” and made other suggestions. His impression of the first draft prepared by Mrs Clark, was that it did not cover the point about Neary saying he had been in favour of filing an application for a general order since May, 1958. He asked her to amend the report to cover that point, Walsh said. He wanted to remove the misconception that had gone abroad that he was opposed to a wage claim. His Honour: Did you desire to make it plain that Neary had opposed a wage claim? Walsh: Yes, with qualification. My qualification is that I desired to make it plain that until the meeting in October, Neary had opposed the filing of a wage claim. Walsh said he saw the finished report just before the meeting of the management committee in May. Mr Dunn: You had never read the report before you went there? Walsh: No, I had not. His Honour: Was your first reading of the report the reading which you made to the meeting? Walsh: Of the final report, yes. Omissions in Report Walsh said he noticed that one or two words had been left out—there were some dots in the report, and he was aware that words were omitted. He would not agree that the words omitted materially changed the meaning of the passage. His Honour: The “People’s Voice” had stated that Neary was opposed to a wage order, had they not? Walsh: Yes. And as at October, 1958, that statement was incorrect?—That’s right. The issue in the “People’s Voice” case was whether, in October Neary was supporting a wage claim?—That was an issue. As at October, 1958, he was supporting a wage claim?—For the first time To questions from Mr Dunn, Walsh said that he could not say that, as chairman of the meeting, he was unfavourably disposed to any person. “I treat every person the same when I chair a meeting,” said Walsh. At the management committee

meeting he did not think he pointed out that some words were omitted from the portion of the notes of evidence referred to in the report. Each member had a copy and followed it as he read it.

At the trades council meeting, when the report was presented, Neary was heated, said Walsh. His Honour: There were things said about him. You could expect him to be heated? If somebody said about you that you had deliberately told lies on oath in Court wouldn’t you be heated? —Yes, I would. To Mr Dunn, Walsh said Neary had not objected to his comment at the meeting on the point that there were two sections in the movement, one advocating a wage claim, Walsh and Fenton being in the opposite section. “I made the most of that to the best of my ability,” said Walsh. “Report Not Disputed” Walsh said Neary had given no denial to the matters affecting him and Fenton. “If he had, I would have asked the meeting to accept the amendment that the report be referred back, so that we could get the matter cleared up,” said Walsh. “There was nothing that Neary said in speaking to the report that, in my opinion, called for a re-examination of the report.” Mr Dunn: You say in the report that he gave false evidence on oath? Walsh: That is correct. You also say that he said: “What I said was God’s Truth?” —That’s so. Could he dispute It any more strongly than that?—To his way of doing it,. no. To your way of doing it? —Yes, he could have. “All he had to do was to quote this passage, and say to myself and Fenton: ‘lf you interpret those words to mean that you were opposed to a wage order, 1 did not mean that, and you are putting a wrong interpretation on that. lam prepared to rectify that not only at this meeting but publicly,’ I wquld have been quite happy,” said Walsh. Neary had ample opportunity to deny it at the trades council and in the Arbitration Court. Incident at Meeting Mr Dunn: You have told us that you could not agree that members of the management committee had any reason to be afraid of you? Walsh: That is my honest view. Do you agree that some people are afraid of you?—l don’t know of any. Do you agree that, from time to time, you do make threats of violence?—l cannot agree with that, no. Do you remember Robert Adams who fell out with you in the Seamen’s Union? Didn’t you have him beaten up In the Wellington Trades Hall?—No. You deny that?—l will deny that I had him beaten up. His Honour: Was he assaulted or beaten up in the Wellington Trades Hall? Walsh: He was not assaulted or beaten up. He endeavoured to come into a meeting he was not entitled to, and the doorkeeper put him out. Mr Dunn: And he ended up about two floors down? Is that right? Walsh: I could not say whether it was two or one. Was the doorkeeper on that occasion. one Richard Hazel Ryan, who is now the assistant secretary of the Seamen’s Union? —I could not say on oath whether he was. Do you think it Is probable that he was?—l don’t think he would have been doorkeeper. “Pushed Out” Do you think he was implicated in this incident?—l can recall Adams trying to come in, and several members pushed him out of the meeting. His Honour: Do you think Ryan was one? Walsh: I think he was. Mr Dunn: He is assistant secretary of your union? Walsh: Not my union, the Seamen’s Union. At the October meeting of the trades council when Allen opposed you, didn’t he say that he had had threats of violence?—l cannot identify the meeting. The election meeting of 1958. No. To the best of my knowledge, it was not raised at the election meeting. It was raised at the following meeting. Did he say he had had telephone messages that he would be beaten up if he beat you?—He said that a report had appeared in “Truth” to that effect. His Honour: Did he say he had had telephone messages? Walsh: He said he had had telephone messages. Mr Dunn: Threatening to beat hjm up?

Walsh: No, sir. He had had anonymous telephone messages, but said he took no notice. He said he reported them to the police. Mr Dunn: Did you know that a previous fixture for the hearing of thia action ... |

His Honour: Put your next question to me, Mr Dunn, before putting it to the witness. Mr Dunn: The question I was to put is whether this witness rang an associate of mine and said it would be well for me to remember that for £2OOO he could get a Sydney gunman to bump me off. His Honour: You can put that question. Walsh: That is quite untrue. . . . His Honour: Did you ring an associate of Mr Dunn’s? Walsh: No, sir, not in connexion with this case. Mr Dunn: When you said not in connexion with this case, what did you mean? Walsh: I didn’t speak to anyone outside my own solicitor concerning this action or yourself. Mr Dunn: You are sure of that? Walsh: Yes. You told us you went to Bailey and asked him to get notes of evidence for you?—Yes. Supported Communists Who is Bailey?—Secretary of the Wellington Drivers’ Union. Is he a Communist?—l am not in a position to say whether he is or not. Has he got the general reputation of being one? —I would say that the general opinion is that he supported the Communist line. When were the next elections to the trades council after he had provided those notes of evidence? —May, 1959. His Honour: I think you misunderstood the question. When were the last elections? Walsh: In October—last month. Mr Duifn: Was Bailey a candidate for the management committee? Walsh: Yes. Was he on your ticket?—No. Did you support him for that office?—Personally, no. What is the significance of your word “personally?”—The union I represent did not support him. Do you support him?—l said “No.” Do you support Mr Molineux? Yes. Is he generally reputed to be a Communist? —No. He is definitely the other way. Do you remember that Molineux had said that he had the greatest contempt for Neary for going to a “capitalist Court?”— No, I cannot recall the use of the words “capitalist Court.” Donation to Paper Did he say he had contempt for Neary going to the Court?— He said he had contempt for him taking an action, and giving evidence in the Court which he knew was untrue. Did he say he had given the biggest donation he had ever given in his life to the “People’s Voice?”—He stated that he had given the donation to the “People’s Voice,” as he considered that on the evidence given by Neary being untrue, it was not justified. His Honour: What was not justified? Walsh: The decision. Walsh said that he did not recall Bailey making a similar remark at the same meeting. “Bailey had expressed the opinion that if Neary had a complaint to make it should be ironed out within our. own movement,” said Walsh. His Honour: Anything concerning the “People’s Voice?” Walsh: Anything concerning our movement. Mr Dunn: Did you agree with that? Walsh: No, I did not. Did you feel aggrieved yourself at the decision of the people’s Court?—No, I did not. On the evidence that was given I thought the decision was a fair one. Do you know yourself that there was a great deal of concern in Communist circles about it?—l was aware that there was a great deal of concern throughout the movement. His Honour: The concern you are expressing now is in the Communist movement and not the trade union movement? Walsh: Thank you, Sir, for correcting me, because I know nothing whatsoever about concern in the Communist movement. Concern in Movement Walsh agreed that there was a great deal of concern throughout the political and industrial Labour movement. Mr Dunn: And that stems from your report? Walsh: No. What stems from our report is to have rectified the statements which Neary made, which we say were untrue and concerned particularly Fenton and myself. Yes, but you told us there was great concern throughout the political and industrial Labour movement because Neary got this money through giving false evidence? That is what you said?— That is right. That has seriously effected Neary's reputation?—l did not say it has, because just been re-elected secretary of his own union. In re-examination. Mr Blundell asked Walsh about his association with the Communist Party. . Walsh replied that he joined the Socialist Party of America in 1917. “I was a member of the Com-

munist Party of New Zealand from 1921 to our seamen’s strike in 1923,” he said. Mr Blundell: Was that New Zealand Communist Party affiliated with any Russian or world Communist organisation? Walsh: No affiliation whatsoever. Purely a domestic Communist party?—Yes. Walsh went on that he left the Communist Party in 1923 because the party endeavoured to dictate to him the policy which he should adopt within the Seamen's Union. “I refused to take dictation from anyone outside the body of the union of which I was a member,” he said. End of Association Walsh said he put the motion which brought about the termination of the strike and this he would not have done had he followed the dictates of the party. He denied that he had been associated with the Communist Party since then. "It is widely held that I have been one of the Communist Party’s strongest opponents in New Zealand,” said Walsh. “I have been the most effective opponent of the Communist Party in this country.” Mr Blundell: Do you feel that Neary's action against the “People’s Voice” had some beneficial effects as far as the Communist Party was concerned? Walsh: Yes, I do.

Why?—The Communist Party prior to the action by Neary was practically dead.in this country. From several sources I had received information that they would have to close up publication of the “People’s Voice” for the lack of money. The result of the decision had the effect of bringing sympathy to the party, and they collected more than £2500 from people who, prior to the taking of this action, would not have touched the Communist party with a 40 foot pole. In. any way with preparation or distribution of this report, were you under any influence, direct or indirect, from the Communist Party?—No, sir. Mr Blundell referred to the meeting of the national council of the Federation of Labour in November, 1958, which had indicated that the best time to file an application for a wage claim, unless something unforeseen happened to decrease the consumers’ price index, would be in the next quarter.

Mr Blundell: Is it customary for resolutions relating to application for a general wage order to be

couched in terms where secrecy is sought? Walsh: No. Walsh said that the reason in this case “was that we did not want the employers to become aware that we were going to file an application for two main reasons—first, if it became known to the employers that we were filing the application, past experience showed that in conciliation councils, they would refuse to make an offer to the workers; and, second, we did not want people to know we were making representations to the Government to amend the stabilisation regulations, knowing that they would take strenuous efforts to prevent the regulations being amended to incorporate the 18 per cent.” Mr Blundell referred to crossexamination about the “Sydney gunman,” and asked Walsh: "Do you deny this imputation?” Walsh: It is too ridiculous for words. I am surprised that counsel should have asked that question. I certainly deny it. The next witness to be called was Francis Leslie Fenton, vicepresident of the Wellington Trades Council, one of the defendants. t Examined by Mr Greig, Fenton said when the Budget was announced, that was the "parting of the ways.” The July meeting of the management committee considered a statement made by Walsh and endorsed by the national executive committee of the Federation of Labour, which was the subject of very bitter complaint. Mr Greig: What was the complaint? Fenton in Box

Fenton: As I remember it, that Walsh in his published statement criticising the Budget and advocating a wage increase, was doing it for no other reason but to embarrass the Government. Who was it making those complaints?—Nolan and Neary. Fenton said that up to the annual meeting in 1958, Walsh’s attitude was the attitude of the national executive—that they should file an application for a wage increase as, and when, the circumstances warranted. “My attitude was exactly the same as Walsh’s. Neary had never in my presence agreed with the attitude of the national executive,” said Fenton. Other dissentions in the ranks of the Trades Council over newspaper leakages and disputed elections had certainly aligned Neary against Walsh.

The Court adjourned till tomorrow morning.