DEFENCE ON REFERENCE TO THEFT OF FISH

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29854, 21 June 1962, Page 5

DEFENCE ON REFERENCE TO THEFT OF FISH

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 20. George Adams, a trade union secretary, apparently put a value of £7500 on the distinction he drew between a conviction for the theft of fish from a shipping company and a conviction for theft from “co-unionists,” counsel submitted in the Supreme Court today. Adams, secretary of the Wellington Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators, Display and Poster Artists’ Industrial Union of Workers, is claiming damages of £7500 against the president of the Federation of Labour, Fintan Patrick Walsh, for alleged slander.

Mr J. H. Dunn appeared tor Adams, and Mr C. H. Arndt, with him Mr W. J. Kemp, for Walsh. Mr Justice Hutchison presided. Mr Kemp, opening the case for the defendant, said it had been alleged that Walsh falsely and maliciously spoke and “published” of the plaintiff the words specified in the statement of claim. “It should be said at once that insofar as the first statement is concerned, that is the one relating to a conviction for thieving from his mates, the defendant did in fact make a statement, the substantial effect of which is as set out in the statement of claim, although the actual words used were different in some particulars.” said Mr Kemp. “It will be said that the actual words used were not that Robert Adams had been convicted of thieving from his mates, but he had been convicted of stealing fish, the fish in question being the property of fellow trade unionists. Second Statement “It is denied that the second statement was made insofar as it relates to the plaintiff. •‘Evidence will be led to say that the defendant did say. with reference to a completely different matter, that he had known of people in Butte, Montana, who had woken the leader of the local strike at night, put a rope round his neck and so on, but it is completely denied that those words had any reference whatever to the plaintiff.” Mr Kemp said there would be evidence that the statement related to a question which was being discussed at a meeting of the national council of the Federation of Labour relating to the obtaining of an unqualified preference clause for unionists. The defendant was addressing a meeting on the necessity for a united front by unionists m their efforts to obtain unqualified preference' clauses for awards.

During the discussion it had been said there would be some unions which might not support the Federation of Labour on that topic. Walsh had then said there had always been people from the beginning of unionism who had opposed the policy of the movement.

"The defendant then went on to say that he had always disliked scabs and said that they were similar to people he had known in Butte, Montana, and the rest of these words then followed,” said Mr Kemp.

“What I desire to put before you at the moment is that the evidence which will be led on behalf of the defendant will clearly establish in the submission of the defendant that those words had no relation whatever to the plaintiff.”

It was not the case of someone bringing an action complaining that he had been falsely accused of a conviction for theft. Theft From Company

Adams was convicted of theft of fish from the Union Steam Ship Company. It was probably plain that the Union Steam Ship Company did not own the fish which it carried on the Lyttelton ferry. The company, in law, as a carrier had sufficient interest in the fish to justify a charge that fish had been stolen from the company, but evidence would be given that it did not own the fish which was the subject of the charge Walsh had pleaded justification as a defence meaning that the words used by him that Adams had been convicted of theft from his mates or his fellow trade unionists were true in substance and in fact. In 1940 Adams was a member of the Seamen's Union, and there would be evidence that at chat time nearly all fishermen were members of the Seamens Union and frequently shipped their fish in cases to Wellington for auction.

“It will be submitted to you that if the fish in respect of which the plaintiff was convicted was consigned to Wellington by fishermen in the South Island and these fishermen were members of the Seamen’s Union, then what it amounts to is that the plaintiff was convicted of theft of fish belonging to his fellow unionists or his mates, if you like to put it that way.”

Mr Kemp said it appeared that Adams put a value of £7500, the amount of the claim, on the distinction that he drew between a conviction for the theft of fish from the Union Company and a conviction of theft of fish from his co-unionists. If it became necessary to consider the question of damages, the jury would be asked to consider what, in terms of money, that distinction was worth. If the jury was satisfied thait the fish was in fact the property of the fishermen that was the end of the case. Privilege Question Referring to the defence of qualified privilege. Mr Kemp said the law recognised that there were occasions when it was in the public interest that persons should be allowed to speak freely when it was their duty

to tell what they knew or what they really believed to be the position. “In such cases, that is where you have an occasion of qualified privilege, no matter how harsh or untrue the statement is, the law declares it privileged because the amount of public inconvenience from the restriction of freedom of speech would far displace that arising from the infliction of a private injury.” Mr Kemp said. “There was a meeting of the national council of the Federation of Labour called for the purpose of discussing the annual report which was to be placed before the annual conference of the federation and one of the matters that was to be dealt with was the recenj, legislation which abolished compulsory unionism “The defendant, who is the president of the Federation of Labour, reported to the meeting that a stop-work meeting had been held at the Wellington Patent Slip Company and a resolution passed to the effect that the combined workers at the patent slip supported the Federation of Labour in its endeavour to get a round table conference with the employers Two Against "The defendant reported that only two officials at the meeting spoke against the recommendation of the federation and that the plaintiff was one of them. The other was Mr Neary, he said “At that meeting of the council one of the councillors interjected. He will be called as a witness and he said that he could understand why Mr Nearly voted against the policy of the federation, but he could not understand why Adams did. “He wanted to know why Adams had taken up that attitude. So we get this position. That this statement that Adams had been expelled from the Seamen's Union and that he had been convicted of theft of fish and that the fish in question was the property of his fellow unionists was not volunteered. It was put forward in answer to a legitimate inquiry which had been made by one of the councillors present. “Moreover, evidence will be given that the reply in the first instance was not made by Mr Walsh, but by the secretary, Mr Baxter, and Mr Baxter explained that the plaintiff's union was not affiliated to the Federation of Labour, that the plaintiff had shown hostility to the federation since his union had withdrawn from the federation. “The defendant then said that" the plaintiff had always shown hostility to the federation because he had been expelled from the Seamen’s Union because of his conviction for the theft of fish, and went on to say that the fish belonged to his fellow members, the fishermen who at that time were members of the Seamen's Union," Mr Kemp said. “Now, under these circumstances, it is claimed that the occasion is one of qualified privilege and in the circumstances it was the duty of the defendant to disclose what he believed to be the truth regarding the reasons for the plaintiff’s attitude." William Tricklebank, a defence witness, said in evidence he was for 36 years a detective at the Wharf Police Station, Wellington. He recalled Adams had been jointly charged with a man named Copeley for the theft of fish. Both men had been crew members of the Maori. Special Instructions Tricklebank, asked by Mr Dunn whether he recalled a short time before the conviction receiving special instructions, said there had been instructions from the Commissioner of Police. “He received a complaint regarding fish being stolen from the ferry boats and he asked me to clean it up.” Tricklebank said he had also received a complaint from the superintendent of claims of the Union Company that fish shipped from Lyttelton was being tampered with on the boats. He himself was aware fishermen in the South Island daily shipped fish to Wellington. A few days before Adams’s conviction witness received a complaint from the chief officer of the Maori, Mr Angus, and he subsequently interviewed Adams and Copeley at the Wharf Police Station in relation to the alleged theft of five crayfish and two fresh fish They were arrested and charged and did not make any statements. Pleading not guilty, they were convicted by a magistrate and sentenced to a month's imprisonment. Tricklebank said he subsequently saw Adams many times Adams used to inquire who “tipped him off.” Company Policy Keith Alexander Belford, industrial superintendent for the Union Steam Ship Company, testified that he was familiar with his company’s policy in regard to the future employment of seamen and other company employees who were convicted of thieving goods on one of the company's ships.

On conviction the men were dismissed and the company was not prepared to give them further employment. The respective unions were notified accordingly.

The company expected the unions to withdraw the men’s union books to prevent them seeking engagement at shipping offices. To Mr Dunn, witness said he did not hold Adams's conviction against him except inasmuch as he regarded a conviction as a “mark of disfavour” against any person. Mr Dunn: Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the Union Company would have forgiven it long ago? Witness: No, not necessarily. “Particularly with regard to the care of cargo, we look to the people on the ships to assist us in protecting it,” Belford said. “If a man is guilty of stealing it we don’t want him back in our employ.” Men Apprehended Sydney Charles Angus, master mariner, said he was chief officer on the Maori in 1940 and bad apprehended two crew members taking fish. While the ship was berthed at Lyttelton he saw Adatns and a man named Copeley with a bucket containing fish. “I approached these two men and asked them what they were doing taking fish out of the cargo and having it in the bucket. One of them, I think it was Copeley. said: ‘lt has been a fair catch.’ ” Angus said the two men did not deny taking the fish. He reported toe matter to the captain. It was subsequently reported to the claims department in Wellington. To Mr Dunn, Angus said he did not tell Copeley he would report the matter to the Seamen’s Union. He had no authority to report anyone to the union. Plaintiff’s Case When the hearing continued this morning Adams, under continued crossexamination by Mr Arndt, said there were originally 15 members of an antiexpulsion committee of the Seamen’s Union in 1940. He could only remember the name of one of them. Mr Arndt: You mentioned yesterday a picket who wanted to join the Maunganui for the purpose of putting sand in the bearings? Adams: One of the chaps asked me about that, yes. You knew that’s what he wanted to do? —Well, I don't know. But he suggested it. At the time I was very suspicious

He suggested to you he would join the ship and put sand in the bearings?—He did. yes. He wanted permission. He wanted my help to suggest to members that he should do that. I wouldn’t tolerate it.

Did you report the matter to the union officials? —Oh. no. That was their policy. You’re seriously suggesting that you were suspicious that the officials of the Seamen’s Union might have sent a seaman down to join the Maunganui for the purpose of putting sand in the bearings?— No* ’exactly in that line. I became suspicious that he was wanting to join the ship to get wages while the others were on strike. Also, It may have been a suggestion from the officials to me and then twisted back on tb me that I would support such a thing. Would you please explain what you mean?—That was my suspicion at the time. I didn’t know. I had to be careful, it could have been that. Could have been what?— My second suspicion was this may have been suggested to this chap by the officials or by Walsh to” get me to agree and then condemn me for agreeing to it. You say that in all seriousness?—l honesty do. And he asked you not to cause any further trouble?— He never asked anything of the sort. He told the police where to get off. “No Charge” Did you lay a charge of assault with the police?—! did not. Why not?—Well, if a man can tell the police to go and see the Prime Minister, I don’t see what chance I'd have. Did you bring any civil proceedings for damages for assault?—l did not. Turning back to the meeting at the patent slip, the president of the Plumbers’ Union was the late Harry Thompson?—He was secretary. And the first you knew of the meeting was when Thompson called on you and told you?—That is correct. He told you, didn't he, that the employers had refused to meet the Federation of Labour in conference about settling the dispute after the break-down in conciliation? —What he told me was that there was a meeting. I asked him what it was for.

What were you told?—He just said “the plumbers' dispute." I said “What's in dispute?" He said: “8s an hour and January 2." But he was very concerned in informing me that I had no need to attend the meeting that I was only being invited Suggesting he was anxious you shouldn't go?—He gave me that impression. You know what you were told, that the object of the meeting was to bring pressure on the employers for the purpose of settlement?— I wasn’t told anything of the sort. Slip-workers and

plumbers were having a dispute as far as I could make out.

Sidney William Armstrong Conciliation Commissioner, of Christchurch, said he presided over conciliation proceedings involving the Plumbers’ Union and toe employers which began late last year and resumed in February and March last.

Armstrong said he had been subpoenaed only threequarters of an hour previously and had not had access to any of the documents in the dispute, which were in Christchurch.

He had had a quick look at the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act to see whether he had any right to claim privilege but he could find nothing. He assumed he had no right of privilege. In reply to tus Honour Armstrong said that when the Conciliation Council was in open meeting only on veryrare occasions was a newspaper present. If a reporter came to the meeting he would immediately let the parties know of his presence and the meeting might then go into committee.

His Honour said that if Armstrong did not claim privilege he could see no justification for granting it. Armstrong then gave an outline of the conciliation proceedings. Donald Mclnn.es Bell, retired, said that for 33 years he was caretaker of the Wellington Trades Hall. He retired six months ago. He remembered an incident 20 years ago when there was a stop-work meeting of the Seamen’s Union in the Trades Hall. Told Of Trouble Bell said he had been told there was trouble at the meeting, and on going there saw Walsh dragging Adams down the stairs. He had hold of Adams by the “scruff of the neck and one arm.” Adams had blood all over his face and was hanging on to a handrail. To Mr Kemp, Bell said he was first asked to remember the incident two or three weeks ago. Mr Kemp: Did you notice Adams’s condition at the time?—Yes. he was dazed. But would it be correct to say it appeared Walsh was helping him down the stiars? —He was dragging him, forcing him. Were you approached by the police at that time to make a statement?—No. Maurice Wall, a retired waterside worker, said he was at one time a member of the Seamen’s Union, first joining in 1914. He continued in it until 1937. He was assistant secretary for six years At various meetings Adams used to agitate and speak his piece and so fell foul of Walsh. said Wall. “Walsh had him set. meaning he's in the gun. I’d better put it plainly. He was going to make it hot for him, and others.” said Wall.

At the meetings Walsh more or less lost his head many times, and used to go round waving his hands frantically. The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Freshmen at Allegheny College in Pennsylvania managed to get 58 men and a St. Bernard dog into a closet nine feet long, six feet wide and eight feet high.