NO LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 253, 9 July 1926, Page 8

NO LIBEL

HALL SKELTON v. SEABROOK JURY FINDS AGAINST PLAINTIFF METHODS DEPRECATED BY A JURYMAN By Telegba.ph.—PbSss Association Auckland, July 7. The hearing of the action for alleged libel brought by A. Hall Skelton against H. H. Seabrook was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer. Plaintiff, answering Sir John Findlay, said the Self-determination League was started in Auckland in a small way. He became associated with it in the spring of 1921, and attended some meetings, but it did not seem to do much. About the end of November he was asked and attended a gathering at Wellington; he then had the first intimation that they wanted to send a delegate Home. It was then decided to form a Self-deter-mination League for New Zealand, the title being altered so as to make it quite clear that the league was in favour of home rule existing in New Zealand only and had nothing to do with the republic. The murders mentioned by Mr. Findlay ; esterday were on both sides. This closed the case for plaintiff. In opening the defence, Mr. Finlay said, however the case might look,. it was obviously a political one, in which certain sectarian matters had been introduced. He suggested that plaintiff had carried.the political contest into the enemy camp; there were naturally reprisals, and they were fair and natural reprisals. The worst statement Seabrook was alleged to have made was that plaintiff had killed his two children; there was not a vestige of truth in that. Henry Hastings Seabrook, defendant, said he had been in Auckland for 67 years; lie was a resident and an elector of Roskill electorate, and was also president of the Roskill group of the P.P.A. During the war he was on the side of the Empire; he took a great interest in Irish historical affairs, and in his opinion they were all a lot of rebels in Ireland. /

Sir John Findlay: Oh! Witness qualified his remark by saying that a great number were. He had never attacked Hall Skelton, and he strongly denied that be had ever accused plaiptiff of killing his children or thrashing his wife. If never went through his mind, and it. was a deliberately untrue statement;, he did not know anytliing about it until yesterday. He was well known in the Roskill district.

His Honour: You need not press that point, Mr. Finlay. I will instruct the jury that the evidence on those lines is not to be taken notice of; if such things had been said there should have been witnesses.

Witness said he had nothing to do with the publication of the circular complained of. His association circulated the matter, but he had nothing to do with that. Tbe circular which bore his name was prepared by members of his group, and he signed it as president. About 1000 of the circulars were printed, and they were no doubt distributed about the district. In the 1922 election tlie P.P.A. issued two circulars.

Sir John Findlay: Do you tell the jurv that vou bore no animosity towards Air. Hall Skelton? Witness: None wjiatever. Sir John quoted a paragraph in one of the circulars in which plaintiff was alleged to be supported by the Roman Catholic vote, which was out to get anything it could. Witness said he thought it alluded to the Self-determination League. Sir John: Y’ou mention "representative.” Witness: I understood it to be a branch of the main party Sir John: You sent that circular out? Witness: No; my executive did. Sir John: But vou circulated a great many of them ? Witness: I always take an interest in things I am concerned with, and I don’t dispute that I circulated some of them. Sir John: Did you say plaintiff was a disloyalist? Witness: That is a lie; what T did sav was that I objected to Skelton associating with rebels and disloyalists. Sir John ! Will vou tell the jury that bv those circulars you did not intend to harm Skelton T Witness: I only wanted the electors to know the man who was associating with rebels. Always An Anti-Home Ruler. Str John: What you wanted to imply was that Skelton was an associate of murderers r Witness: He was associated with rebels who wanted to get separation from England. I have been an antiHome Ruler, and I am against disintegration of the British Empire. Sir John: Don’t make a speech. Do vou denv that you meant Skelton was disloyal.' Witness: I did not. Sir John: Whv did vou keep that circular hack until two dr three days before the election ? Witness: Tt was circulated more than a week before the election, and there was no object in keeping it back. Sir John: You don’t know that you broke the law ’ Witness: T don’t know that T have. Sir John: Yon were convicted and-— His Honour: There is an anneal. Sir John: And that is hardly a matter that can be dealt with. Verdict for Defendant. The jury’s verdict, after one hour’s retirement, was that there was no libel tn either cause of action. One juryman asked that a note be made that though there was no libel the methods adopted bv defendant were to be deprecated. Costs were allowed against plaintiff.