Jury Discharged In Union Libel Case

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29783, 28 March 1962, Page 14

Jury Discharged In Union Libel Case

(New Zealand Press Association;

WELLINGTON, March 27.

A jury of 12 hearing a claim for alleged libel by Thomas Frederick Collerton, a union secretary, of Masterton, in the Supreme Court at Wellington today was discharged by Mr Justice McGregor after being told that none of the parties to the action was prepared to pay jury fees.

Collerton is claiming nominal damages of £5 against members of the executive of the Wellington Freezing Works and Related Trades Employees Industrial Union of Workers.

it became obvious he would not receive co-operation from the Petone branch. After nominatjoc for the position he was advised by the secretary of the Petone branch, the defendant Maclean, that at a full branch meeting at Petone a vote of no-confid-ence was passed in him. He himself was not asked to the meeting and was given no reason for the vote. Ticket Butts

A jury of 12 was empanelled because Collerton originally claimed £2OOO damages. After the Court convened he reduced the amount to £5. For this amount a jury is not necessary.

There was trouble with the Petone Branch about membership ticket butts. The rules stipulated that the branch could retain £1 of each £2 sold and 10s of every £1 ticket. The Petone branch refused to surrender the butts of tickets which were sold or the unsold and cancelled tickets. The union’s solicitor refused to audit without the tickets a balance sheet which witness prepared for the year ended September 30, 1930. Arrangements were made to obtain certificates from the president and secretary of each branch giving details of the “ticket situation" and how much money was owed by each branch to the union, and vice versa. In a subsequent investigation into the Waingawa branch by the auditor the certificate signed by the president and secretary of the branch, Wiekens and Sneddon respectively, was found to be incorrect. Collerton referred the matter of the tickets and balance sheet to the Registrar of Industrial Unions. At a meeting of the executive there was a resolution that all moneys be paid to th* district office and that th* district office remit a portion back to the branches. Audit Held Up When Collerton did not receive the required information he told the Secretary for Labour that if he could not prepare a balance sheet for audit he would have to ask the Minister to intervene.

The defendants are J. W. Maclean, a night watchman, of Wellington. Archibald C. Dellaway. a freezing worker, of Naenae. Russell Mortimer Wiekens. a freezing worker, of Masterton, and James Sneddon, a slaughterman, of Carterton.

Collerton is conducting his own case. Mr F. D. O’Flynn is appearing for Maclean and Dellaway and Mr W. S. Shires for Wiekens and Sneddon.

“Unique Position”

After the mid-morning adjournment his Honour, advising the jury that a “unique position” had arisen, said the Juries Act provided for fees to be paid by the parties to a case for each day’s hearing before a jury. The fees for the preceding day had been paid by the first and second defendants.

To prevent litigation in private quarrels proceeding entirely at the expense of the State, the Act stipulated that further payments should be made for each subsequent day the jury was required to sit.

“In this case all the parties have declined to pay fees, so that miy only course, as the required payments for your services have not been complied with by the parties, is to discharge you from all further service in this case.” said his Honour. “I have informed the parties and under those circumstances they still decline to pay, but they have agreed that the action shall proceed before me alone sitting as a judge without a jury.”

He later wrote to the Minister of Labour and subsequently received letters and telegrams calling for a special meeting of the union. On June 19, 1961 a report compiled by Collerton and signed by two other trustees was presented to th* union executive committee.

Plaintiff's Claim

The statement of claim said the plaintiff was secretary of the union and the defendants were members of its executive council. The defendants were alleged to have published or. September 27, 1961. a notice calling a meeting of the executive, which stated the business as follows: “Business: Secretary’s repeated underm min g tactics causing unparalleled disharmony throughout She freezing industry.” “Secretary’s tardiness in carrying out allotted duties.” The defendants in statements of defence denied publication and said that if publication were established it was made in furtherance of a common interest or duty. Alternatively, the defendants claimed that publication was made by them as representatives of their branch for the purpose of obtaining an inquiry by the I executive of the union into : the conduct of the plaintiff as its secretary and the ! taking of appropriate action ito correct and prevent the repetition of any misconduct or impropriety disclosed.

At tiie meeting, standing orders were suapenedd to enable a trustees report to be presented on the Waingawa branch.

The defendant Wicker*, when requested to make records available, had advised that he would forward the books through a solicitor.

While awaiting an auditor'* report the plaintiff received a requisition to call a special meeting. Collerton. cross-examined by Mr O'Flynn, agreed that he had informed the special meeting in October that he had given instructions for writs to be issued against six persons who signed the requisition for a meeting. He had considered the terms of the requisition libellous. The meeting had voted 8-5 in the plaintiff’s favour and he told the meeting he would withdraw the proceedings. When he learned that MaeLean had visited Waingaws and "opened up the matter again," he resolved to go ahead with the proceeding*. The case is part heard*

Collerton said in evidence that when he first took over the duties of union, secretary