ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Clutha Leader, Volume XLI, Issue 1, 10 July 1914, Page 6

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

AGAINST OTAGO DAILY TIMES. LEADING BALCLUTHA FIRM MENTIONED. An action for libel against the Otago Daily Times has been proceeding in Christchurch for several days, and has more than usual interest to Clutha people in that one of the leading business firms in the district—the Import Company—has been mentioned in connection therewith. The , action is brought by Mr Fairbairn, who was a member of the Commission on the Cost of Living appointed by the Mackenzie Government, and there are four causes of action. The first cause of action is based on a leading article published in the Times on October 25, IDI2, which stated that whether with or whether without the sanction of the witnesses concerned the official record of the Commission, of which the plaintiff was a member, was misleading -and erroneous in the respect that certain evidence had been completely suppressed. The plaintiff alleged that this article meant that the Commissioners, including himself, had corruptly tampered with the evidence and had thereby rendered the official report untrustworthy, and that the Commissioners in this respect had acted in an improper and dishonest way.

The second cause of action was based on the publication in the Otago Daily Times of June 10, 1912, of a letter signed by "Wm. R. Gordon," in which the statement was made that if the Government was anxious to' get at the facts as to the cost of living it could readily do so at a minimum cost from the records in its possession, but this "would not have suited the Socialists and would not have given Mr Fairbairn a chance to 'grind his axe.' "

The third cause of action was based on the publication in the Otago Daily Times of June 15, 1912, of a letter signed "Merchant," who, after suggesting that a company, doing business in a southern town, for which all the purchases were made through the firm of Messrs Fairbairn, Wright and Co., was owned by the Hon. Thomas McKenzie, so that business relations existed between him and Messrs Fairbairn, Wright and Co., said that readers of the report of the proceedings of the Cost of Living Commission in Christchurch might be able to understand why Mr Fairbairn publicly examined his own accountant, and they might feel inclined to think that Messrs Fairbairn, Wright and Co. were working in the combined interests of themselves and the grocers, and not for the people generally, as Messrs Fairbairn, Wright and Co. would have the public to believe.

The fourth cause of action was based on the publication in the Otago Daily Times of June 15, 1912, of a letter signed "L.R.W.," which contained the statement that, from the evidence taken in Dunedin, any commonsense elector could see that the whole Cost of Living Commission had been appointed "for the purpose of enabling one of its members to attack his business competitors and to further his own firm's interests."

The plaintiff alleged that the publication in each instance was false and malicious, and claimed £250 damages in respect of each cause of action.

Sir John Findlay, K.C. ; with him Mr Wright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. C. MacGregor, with him Mr C. Stringer, for the defendant company. Evidence was led by Sir John Findlay to show that no alterations had been made in suppressing or altering evidence, but that a statement had been handed to certain newspapers by a witness before the Commission giving particulars further than he gave in evidence.

J. E. Thomson, Balelutha, said .that he was a member of the Import Company. There were four partners—the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie, David Mackenzie, G. H. Thomson and witness. The Hon. T. Mackenzie held one quarter share, but he had no participation in the business. The other three were the active partners. The firm had been in existence since 1901. From an eighth to a tenth of its total purchases were made from Fairbairn, Wright and Co. The rest might be spread over a hundred different firms. It was absurd to say that there were business relations between the Hon T. Mackenzie and Pairbairn, "Wright and Co. Mr Macgregor: The Hon. T. Mackenzie used to own the business? Witness: No. The firm dealt in hardware, groceries, drapery, crockery, and provisions. It had' dealt ; with Fairbairn, Wright and Co. on the usual terms since 1901. Fairbairn, Wright and Co. supplied about a quarter of the groceries and Rattray and Son the rest. It was not correct that the firm got from Fairbairn, Wright and Co. whatever that firm could supply and only what they could supply and ouly outside. Witness said he had not given a traveller named Howes (Neill and Co.) an order; Rattray and Co. were bigger merchants than that firm; did not tell Howes that he had instructions not to give him any business. Witness declined to answer questions as to who had provided the capital for the Import Co's business "but, on being advised.to do so by His Honor, stated that Mr Mackenzie provided about onehalf.

To Sir John Finlay: Mr Fairbairn had no interest in the Import Co.'s busi-

ness. There were a large number of witnesses, and the evidence was lengthy. The case is still proceeding.