AUCKLAND LIBEL ACTION

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 252, 8 July 1926, Page 7

AUCKLAND LIBEL ACTION

BARRISTER SUES PRINTERS £5OOO DAMAGES CLAIMED ECHO OF GENERAL ELECTION By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, July 7. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer and a special jury were occupied at the Supreme Court to-day hearing an action involving a claim of £5OOO damages by Alfred Hall Skelton, barrister and solicitor, against Henry Hastings Seabrook and Thomas Farrell, printers, for alleged libel contained in certain printed matter during the election campaign of 1925. Sir John Findlay and Mr. Inder are counsel for plaintiff, and Messrs. G. W. Finlay and Rogerson for defendants The alleged libel was contained in a i circular headed: "Protestant Political ■ Association,” and signed by Seabrook as president of the Roskill group, and the Parliamentary candidates for Roskill wore V. H. Potter and Hall Skelton. It was stated in the circular that Skelton declared that his ambition was to smash the P.P.A., and thia declaration would no doubt secure him the Roman Catholic vote. The following is quoted from the circular: “It cannot lie forgotten that Skelton acted ag representative of a party seeking to disintegrate the British Empire and has publicly eulogised Miohael Collins, who was leader of a gang of atrocious murderers. and who was condemned to be hanged for crimes against the Empire, Thoughtful men and women who recall such things cannot surely choose as their representative a man who has manifested sympathy with those who. when the Empire was in the throes of a _ struggle for its life, were engaged within it in a policy of murder, to hinder the prosecution of the Great War, and to secure its overthrow.” Plaintiff contended that the circular in fact meant that he was disloyal and in sympathy with murderers. A second causa of action concerned alleged matter in the. New Zealand "Sentinel,” which plaintiff claimed set him out as being disloyal, that he was representative of and identified with and in sympathy with persons who held murder a sacred duty and who were encaged in treasonable practices. On the first claim plaintiff asked for £2OOO, and on the second £9900 damages.

defence will be n denial of publication; that the words complained of were not intended to mean what was a'legod. nor did they bear any defamatory meaning; the words complained of were not libel : thet the words taken in tneir natural meaning so far as they state the facts were true in substance and fact: that tlie or.inions or comment were fair, honest criticism, in the nnbh- interest without malice, and further that nnhlica.tion was privileged and the defendant sustained no damage. Sir John. Findlav, in opening for plaintiff, said he did not think th > case jvould Five the jury much difficulty. Air. .Hall Sl-elton had practised as a barrister nnd solicitor in Auckland for many veers, and defendants were in business in the city. Defendant Farrell >nore or less a technical defendant, ar !i rnere was no grudge against FarJ’p'L The matter of printing and publishing was not contested. It was unfortunate that a certain element of sectarianism grossly disfigured the action to-day. Defendant Seabrook was president of the Roskill group of the P.P.A. During his campaign Skelton studiously avoided anv reference to the ,”-A- or Seabrook, but on the other hand Seabrook two or three days before the election fired a foul shot that was malignant in its entirety. It was the circular mentioned above, which contained wild and bitter words. Shortly after the election Seabrook was convicted for a breach of the Electoral Act. Not content with this violent and bitter attempt when plaintiff bad no chance or legal right of reply, Seabrook printed and published on the same dav an extract from the "N.Z. Sentinel.” The jury was not dealing with an irresponsible man; it was the settled policy of Seabrook, as three years before he had done the same thing. Here was a mau who dipped his baud in the most vitriolic stuff he could, and displayed energy in distributing, his efforts among the people. It was important to note that when malice amounts to almost a. crime the jury should find heavier damages. Here there was a long and cool deliberation that left Seabrook no escape; ho showed great interest in a house-to-honso canvass of two circulars; he then showed his devotion to the cause by attending political meetings, and saw that every person going in got one of the circulars. The generosity he displayed in this matter was almost amazing, said Sir John Findlay. Dealing with the defence, counsel said that after denying that the words were published opposing counsel went on to say that the words that wore published were true and fair and honest criticism and comment, and were published with- ■ out malice. The defence really meant, that it was hopeless for Seabrook to rely on it. Among the witnesses to-day was plaintiff, Alfred Hall Skelton, who detailed his activities during the war in recruiting work and in the National Reserve. When he was about t<> enlist ho received a telegram from Sir Janies Allen begging him to carry ou with his work. Explaining the effect of tho alleged libel, he said that up to 1921 his business had been successful, and that his gross takings that .year were over £4000; after that they dwindled. He Lad been boycotted, and when ho tried to join different associations he found various matters were brought up. and that he was avoided. Shown different documents claiming to have been published by the Self-determination for Ireland League, witness replied that he did not believe them to be official documents of the league. There were several different sections, and he did not know much about that part of the organisation. His Honour: But you went away to represent them. Witness: I wont to take part in & move for reconciliation. His Honour: Then you must have known something about the organisation. "I did not know much about it,” replied witness. Mr. Finlay (to plaintiff): How much money did you get out of this chaotic organisation (meaning the self-deter-mination for Ireland League) ?—"Oh, I think it came to about £1000.” Mr. Finlay: For what form of Government had the peopD of Ireland voted when you were addressing meetings? Plaintiff replied that he did not know. He had not taken a great deal of interest in the history of Ireland. Subsequent to the war he could not say he had read all the cables. In reply to His Honour, plaintiff said that a man like Michael Collins had to placate the strong section of Republicans opposed to his views. Mr. Collins had told him that that was the attitude he adopted. His Honour: What was the definition of self determination? Plaintiff: It was to support the choice of a Government on the lines of Australia and New Zealand. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.