LIBEL ACTION TIMES V. DOMINION WAS PLAINTIFF'S CHARACTER ATTACKED?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 71, 25 March 1914, Page 8

LIBEL ACTION TIMES V. DOMINION WAS PLAINTIFF'S CHARACTER ATTACKED?

CASE BEING REHEARD. The rehearing of the action in which the New Zealand Times Company claims , the sum of £3000 from the Wellington Publishing Company (The Dominion) for alleged libel contained in an editorial [article -published on 11th December, ; 1913, was commenced at the Supreme Court to-day before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury consisting of Walter Maddison (foreman). Edward Barnard Sill. James Sievers, Edgar Prier. James Lister Frew. James Arthur Elm, David Morris, Albert Pye, John Henry Coates, Ernest Robert Cramp. Mortimer Rearden Hishon, and John Alfred Carter. Mr C. P. Skerrett. X.C.. with Sir ?John Findlay, K.C., and Mr. 0. E. .Stout, appeared for the plaintiffs, and 'i\ti'. C. B. Morison, X.C.. with Mr. M. -Myers and Mr, T. C. A. Hislop, for >the defendants. ' ' COUNSEL'S OPENING ADDRESS. Sir John Findlay. in opening, said that fortunately an action by one news;paper against another newspaper was rare, in the annals of British journalism. iCriticisnj was quite justified, but the .standard of British journalism must be maintained, and there must be no "hitting beknV the belt." A paper might 'be as vitriolic as any 'editor liked to (make( make it. but while it was free to throw on the doctrines of its "rival it could not aim a blow at the character of 'fo(J paper. The plaintiffs were not there ;because the defendants had denounced '•iliem, but because if they had the char'aefcer JJiat the Dominion newspaper said .they had, they would have to retire and •leave the field free to the Dominion. A aiewspaper that had its character assailed had the right to be tried ' by a tribunal such as had been handed down through British history. If a paper was going to tliffve it was bound in every possible way to protect its reputation. >{f it was so grossly libelled 1 that its'_ circulation was reduced and its advertisers 'withdrew their advertisements, Surely it was entitled to defend its 'character. The plaintiffs and defendants catered for the 'tame kind of subscribers and the same kind of advertisements, and the field was limited. The plaintiffs did not contend that the Dominion had no right to take away their advertisements and their subscribers, but they must do it by fair means- The motive the Dominion Company had was not to challenge the opinions of the New Zealand Times, but to drive away its subscribers and cripple its finances. •'ARMED MEN." Reviewing the circumstances in which the libel was published, counsel referred to the strike and the bitterness felt by business people against the strikers. There were riot and , disorder, and Wellington resounded with the bound' of the hoofs of horses ridden by armed men. The Dominion set itself to give the "Red Feds." such' a character for crime and murder that justified any means of stamping them out. " Cowardly murderers ' and "gelignite " were frequently referred to in connection with the Federation. The character given to the Federation was of \he very worst. The Dominion admitted that it from*" time to time, in its editorial columns, gave the Federation a- character for sedition, anarchy, riot, and dishonourable and criminal methods. Then having charged the Federation with all this criminality and lawlessness it accused the New Zealand Times of being an ally and committing itself to the promotion of cowardice, crime, and dishonesty with which it charged the organisation. II then asked would this do the New Zealand Times much good with the business, people. Was this not equivalent to saying, " Advertisers and business men, behold the .arch-vil-lain-of them all, tiie ally of the FedeiationV The real 1 motive for the attack was ' to try and cripple the business of its rival while the passions of ma'u^ ran high. Could any paper sit down quietly in such circumstances, oi' was xb not entitled to come to the Court to see if the charges were true or untrue,? If a paper like the New Zealand Tunes with it large circulation lent itself to such methods as alleged where should we be? The editor woujd be in prison like the men, who in the recent strike had been guilty of crimes less perditions. "VENOMOUS COMMENTS." Counsel then read extracts from articles which appeared in the Dominion for various dates from 11th February, 1913, to 11th December, in all of^ which the Federation of Labour and its methods Were denounced. The article complained of, appearing on the latter date, stated, inter alia : "The inventive genius of our morning contemporary is having a very busy time just now di awing on his imagination for grounds on which to attack its political opponents. . . . In yesterday's itsue that veracious organ ofMhe brewing industry gave up quite a lot of its space to venomous comments on its own distorted version _of current happenings. - . It is a little foolish of the decadent mouthpiece of decaying cause to so plainly disclose Us sympathies' with the Red Federation if it really wishes to help Sir Joseph Ward. . .* . The great bulk of the people have seen exactly what the Red Federation stands for. and. when the official mouthpiece of Wardism, which' has on every possible occasion insidiously encouraged the strikers in the present industrial crisis, openly urges that the Liberals of Lyttelton should throw in their lot with the Socialist- Anarchist organisation in order to gratify the Spleen of their leaders and defeat the Ministerialist candidates, it is not calculated to do either, the Liberal Party or the New Zealand Times much good with tne business people of the .community. . . ." Such comment, counsel went on. was a shabby attempt 'to use the passions of the' hour to injure the business ofi a' rival,' and the action had been brought to; show it was a lie and to vindicate the plaintiffs. FOR THE DEFENCE. [ Mr. Morison, for the defence, asked his Honour to note the following points : (1) The words complained of werecmot published of and concerning the_ plaintiff company, but of and concerning the journal the New Zealand Times. (2) The words complained of could not reasonably bear the meaning alleged in' the. innuendo, and were not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning. Proceeding, counsel said it was clifficuft to really think that his friend, aU though he appeared to be serious in his lemarks, really was serious. The position appeared to him to be similar to looking at a drop of water through a powerful magnifying glass, and seeing there all sorts of undesirable insects. The article complained of was simply a political article, written in connection with the Lyttelton election, between the first and second ballot;;, arid in reply to an article appearing the ' previous day 1 in the New Zealand Times. A corporation or a company, it had been ruled, had no soul, and it was impossible, to hurt its feelings. The proper procedure would have been, instead of rushing into Court, to reply with a proper swinging article. The only way to gsU sound

public opinion wag to have newspapers tearing each other's policy to pieces, in order to sco svhich was supporting the ! weaker side. Counsel lead the article which had appeared in the New Zealand | Times of 10th December (the day before the Dominion's aiticle). This article, he said, had evoked the editorial comment by the Dominion, criticising, as it did, 'the "Reform' 1 and "squatter" party. Every line in that article (he submitted) contained a challenge to the other paper, ft had practically stated that the Liberals were pledged to vote for the "Red Federation." Counsel read an article previously appearing "in the New Zealand Times in which the Federation was accused of anarchical and revolutionary methods, and remarked it was ludicrous to think that the paper should tell the Liberals that this was the organisation they should support. The Dominion's article was not. an attack on the Times's business, but merely asked what the business people would flunk of a paper which urged the public to support the Red Federation. He wished to emphasise that the Dominion was not attacking the company. The object Of the article was to "jntt off" some of Mr, M'Combs's supporters and get them to support Mr. Miller. There was a difference between an attack on a company and an attack on a journal, and there 'was nothing that could be construed into an attack on the company. . ' "A GREAT ARMED FORCE." After the luncheon adjournment counsel continued his address, seeking to prove that the comment was justified by ¦ fact. On 3rd November the Times had referred to the "arrival of a great armed force in the city to crush trade unionists to unconditional surrender." This was calculated to excite opposition against the authorities and sympathy for the strikers. Reviewing other statements made by the paper, counsel said it ¦ had not played the game of supporting the authorities in the interests of a settlement. , The attitude ' taken was calculated to bring the Arbitration' Act into disrepute and to encourage the "Red Feds' to keep outside of the Act. In his final remarks to the jury Mr. Morison said they had a great principle in their hands, and asked them not to be a party to the smothering of the press! The broad principle was .not thispapev and that paper, but the light of every paper to pull to pieces the views and advocacies of another paper. The case was proceeding when The Post went to press.