LIBEL ALLEGED

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 260, 29 July 1932, Page 13

LIBEL ALLEGED

Accusation in Pamphlet “LIAR AND PERJURER” Police Inspector and Arms AUCKLAND MEN CHARGED By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, July 28. As a sequel to the unemployed demonstration in the grounce of Parliament House, Wellington, on September 16, George Budd and Ernest Frederick Thomson were tried at the Supreme Court to-day on a charge of publishing a defamatory lA>el of Inspector Lander, of the police. After a long retirement the jury disagreed, and a new trial was ordered.

The "alleged libel was contained in a pamphlet entitled “War” distributed at a meeting held in Auckland in October, and it referred to Inspector Lander as a “liar and perjurer” when he said he was not armed while on duty during the disturbance. After detectives had given evidence counsel produced a photograph taken during the disturbance. Both the detectives said they considered that Inspector Lander, who could be seen in the photograph, was not armed. The man indicated by counsel was not Inspector Lander. Mistake Made. * Counsel then said it was clear that a mistake had been made by the accused. They had seen the photograph and had believed that the man carrying the baton was Inspector Lander. After further evidence had been heard, counsel for accused said the astonishing thing was that the magistrate had ever permitted a prosecution for criminal libel. Inspector Lander had his remedy through a. civil action for libel. The Crown Prosecutor said the law of criminal libel had been brought In only in 1901 because it had been found necessary to restrain irresponsible and dangerous persons from libelling men in public positions. His Honour described the case as a comparatively simple one. The statements against Inspector Lander were that he was a liar, that he perjured himself, and that he attacked defenceless men and women. It was open to the defence to seek to prove that the statements were true, but they had not done so. If these words had been published It would be absurd and impossible to suggest that they were not defamatory. The main defence was that these two men were not. responsible for the publication and distribution of the paper, but there was the direct evidence of two police officers implicating Thompson, and the name of Budd was at the bottom of the paper. The real question was: Is this defamatory libel referring to Inspector Lander? Jury Asks Question. After a retirement of three hours and a half the jury returned to ask if a verdict of publishing was found against Budd, and of distributing against Thompson, would both be equally guilty. ' ‘ His Honour replied that if Budd published a libel he was guilty, and if Thompson distributed a libellous document he also was guilty. The impossibility of reaching an agreement was reported by the foreman after a retirement of four and a half hours; •

His Honour discharged the jury, and said accused would be retried on Monday.

“No, I won’t allow them bail,” he told counsel. “They can stay where they are.”