VERDICT FOR £75

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 257, 27 July 1936, Page 2

VERDICT FOR £75

Nine-day Libel Case of

Seaman LETTER TO AUCKLAND Judgment in Supreme Court lu his libel action under three counts seeking £6OO damages from Finton Patrick Walsh and Felix Newfield, president and secretary respectively of both (he Federated Seamen’s Union of New Zealand and the Wellington Seamen’s Union, Douglas Gibson, a member of the Wellington union, succeeded on one cause of action to the extent of £75 and costs. The case occupied nine days at the Supreme Court, Wellington, and at its conclusion on Saturday, Mr. Justice Blair gave an oral judgment. In regard to costs, his Honour said a good deal of time had been occupied by matters on which defendants succeeded. He allowed Gibson three extra days (days after the first day) at 10 guineas a day and, for extra counsel, four days at seven guineas a day, plus costs on the lowest scale.

Mr. L. K. Wilson and Mr. lan Macarthur represented Gibson and Mr. E. P. Hay appeared for defendants. Privilege was claimed on all three occasions. but he had previously tentatively ruled, and this was confirmed by author! ties that no privilege attached to the third libel—a letter to the Auckland Seamen’s Union secretary stating that Gibson “was nothing more than a rat and was not dependent on going to- sea for a living as he has nefarious ways of getting a living,’’ and that “he had wrecked the Australian union and was attempting to do the same here” —said hie Honour. No privilege could attach where a person reporting a meeting of the union took it on himself to reduce to writing any scurrilous matter which any member saw fit to state. In this third libel the real sting, namely, that Gibson had nefarious means of making a living which, said his Honour, had a sinister complexion, was left out of the minutes, but included in a letter to Anderson written subsequently.. The minutes were more or less a verbatim report of the meeting and the writer had obviously had some qualms about including the statement in the minutes. If it were not proper in the minutes it followed there was less room for privilege when opportunity was taken later to jiubliish the statement in a letter. A fair amount of publicity was given to >he statement when first made by a man named Osmond at a meeting of 300 seamen, but in law there was a marked distinction between the written and spoken word. Slanders were more easily forgotten, but libel was embalmed in the written word. Reputation was Damaged.

The faet remained. Gibson’s reputation was damaged and he was entitled to damages. The extent of the publication was difficult to estimate, but must have been substantial. The first libel waw contained in a confidential document which it was not suggested was sent to any other than union members. It .'tated that evidence was available which, in the executive council's opinion, definitely implicated Gibson and James Fitzgerald in a conspiracy to defeat the will of the membership by sending misleading communications and instructions to F. Sullivan at Greyniout.h. His Honour said there were at the time two schools of union thought, as to what action should be taken to secure concessions from the employees in regard to restoration of cuts. One school believed in direct action by strike methods; the other believed in indirect action by way of irritation tactics. As far as the Seamen's Union was concerned a considerable number in Wellington preferred to strike, but the position was the other way in outside branches. The men then at Greymonth apparently favoured striking. The officials felt half-hearted action could not succeed, but some hot-heads at Greymouth decided to act independently and not go to sea. The officials disapproved of this. The tendency was, because of seamen’s loyalty to each other, for a sectional strike to spread, even if only a section favoured a strike. It. was suggested this sectional strike was engendered by persons not actuated by the best motives. The officials saw harm and disorganisation to the union in such action. As far as he could see, Gibson was one of those who favoured a strike, said his Honour. Some of the Greymouth seamen were imprisoned under the Shipping and Seamen Act for their actions, and subsequently released and induced to return to their ship by union officials. The executive investigated the Greymonth matter and charged five members, asking the body of members to confirm their recommendations to expel two and suspend three. Signed by Executive. The first euuse of action was based on a report supplementary to the report ot the executive’s investigations and recommendations. The report was signed by all the executive, but Gibson had named Walsh and Newfield in his action. As far as he could sec there was no suggestion any other executive councillor repudiated his signature to the report, said his Honour. The report was no - lore than an indictment of Gibson and others. It did not find them guilty. The evidence showed Gibson did not personally send any of the highly objectionable telegrams which were the subject of’ special charges against certain persons. When the executive made this report it w.is well aware that Gibson was repeatedly in the company of men named in the report and there was no evidence lie had endeavoured to prevent n sectional strike at Greymouth. “Had I been a member of the council I would have assumed he (Gibson) was by no menus unfavourable to the course of action taken by the Greymouth people.” said his Honour. It seemed the circumstances of the issue of the report were clearly privileged, said his Honour. The matter then as vital to the union and its future and unquestionably it was also vital, for those reasons, that it be inquired into. Ihe report seemed a moderate statement ot the position at the time, made in the honest belief it was true. He also could find no evidence of it being actuated b) malice. .... The second cause ot action concerned a letter to Jacob Johnson,, general secretary of the Australian Union, to the effect that a small section of individualists had endeavoured to engineer a section strike by means of lying and misleading communications. His Honour said the most that could be made of this was to look at it as part of evidence of malice am] there <l><l not seem any evidence that*a letter by Walsh to Johnson justifying the action of his union was malicious.