£5000 CLAIMED

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 37, 14 February 1919, Page 7

£5000 CLAIMED

GRIERSON v. THACKER

DAMAGES CLAIMED FOft ALLEGED SLANDER

WHAT WAS SAID?

The Grierson v. Thacker action for alleged slander Was resumed to-day, before-Mr. Justice Chapman and a jtiry of twelve. Mr. T. Young and Mr..l. Neave appeared for the pla-iiitiffj and Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. Johnson, of Christchurch, for the defendant.

Further evidence was called to prove the publication of the alleged slander at the election meeting in the. Town Hall.. Garnet- G. Ronayne, clerk, employed- at i Defence Headquarters, said Dr. Thacker described how Madame Boeufvc searched Grierson's boxes, and found evidence that, Ije was a German spy. He ended by saying that Grierson had gone over to the enemy. Witness thought this, assertion strailge, as. he had known .pre vioUsly that Grierson was in hospital.* .J_ere was . ho doubt that Dr. Thacker's remark referred to Grierson. »'...-'*

To Sir John Findlay: He noticed no reference to any other mail having gone over to the enemy. Leonard Darke, carpenter, gave evidence on similar lines. He remembered Dr. Thacker saying that Madame BoeUfve arid others searched Griersoil's boxes and found evidence le_din£ theta to believe that he was a German spy. Then Dr, Thicker said that Grierson had gone over to the enemy.

Sydney Percival Hudson, returned soldier, employed, by the Defence Department, gave corroborative evidence. He was positive that the reference tb Grierson was quite distinct from the statement i-egarding Nimot, Who Was supposed to have deserted.

G. G. G. Watson, barrister and solicitor, said his recollection .of the. remarks Was fixed because his attention was drawn to theni at the time, and also a week or two latter. He.remembered: ho reference to an officer named Flohr. He would have noticed the reference had it been made, as the firm with which heW-as connected acted for Flohr. '

To Sir John Findlay: Any' reference to Flohr could only have been made at a time when the turmoil prevented witness from hearing. , A. S. Rae, clerk, distinctly remembered the reference to . Grierson, because about a month before he had seen in a. newspaper an official statement that Grierson was in hospital. Nicholas Brazendale, clerk, Public Service Commissioner's Office, also remembered the reference, because he had seen a published notice that Oriei'son was in hospital. " .

W. J. Helyer, formerly monumental mason, said the words were impressed upon his mind by conversation with Mr. Watson at the time and shortly afterwards.

Sir John Findlay: If Dr. Thacker says this reference was to Nimot what would you say?—lt would be absolutely false. This closed tho case for the plaintiff.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Sir John Findlay said the jury would Come to the conclusion that whatever was said by Dri - Thacker was not regarded seriously by the meeting. They had had it from the evidence on the other side that the speech was an hysterical denunciation of which no sensible mail Would take notice. Dr. Thacker did not know Grierson, had never met-him; therefore there could be no question of malice. As', a member of Parliament, Dr. Thacker thought it'his duty ; to carry on a campaign to check the drift into our'forces. Of persons of German "6. semi-German descent. There were two charge's—that it was said GrierSon " was an arrant German spy" and that "he- went over to the enemy." These- were mutually contradictory statements which no speaker would make in his senses. A man who was a spy would be going to his friends in deserting. He would call evidence to prove that the "•' reference to going over to the enemy Was . made to Nimot, who did go over to the enemy. Was it likely that Dr. Thacker would make such a reference to Grierson, when it had bee?, officially published in the press- that the latter was in hospital. They might, be told that there was a shorthand report of the words, but the note was a careless ohe. Abovfe each note was a longhand name, and if the names were misplaced thai Would make all the difference. Sll* John,Findlay referred to the reference in the Grierson inquiry report, ahd said that Grierson himself wis to blame'for tho ' widespread distrust of him. Dr. Thacker knew of all the facts in regard to Grierson arid Nimot, and his reference to going over "• to the enemy was to Nimot. Evidence would be called to this effect. If some members of the audience took the references as being made to Grierson no one was sorrier than Dr. Thacker. Sir John Findlay characterised'the way in which the action was brought as extremely unfair. The freedom of speech on the platform must be protected, and if a man was to be subject to an actioii for £5000 damages for something said si^ months before, many • public men would be mute when they should be outspoken. , DR. THACKER'S EVIDENCE. Dr. % Thacker was then called to give'" evidence. He explained the reasons {or y his campaign, Which, he said, was conducted solely for the safety of ohr Soldiers, ahd with no personal animosity whatever. At the Town Hall meeting he urged that all men in the forcesshould be above suspicion. He referred to the case of "Adjutant" Flohr. He said in reference to Grierson that Madame BoeufVe and Others searched boxes which he possessed at his lodgings, ahfct they found articles which led th'eth to believe he was a German, and through their efjprts a commission was Sot Up. But Sir James Allen assured the commission that Grierson was a gentleman of 400 years' standing, and he was allowed to leave the' country with a reinforcement. And now fresh rumours of him were coming from the boys at the front. "At no time have I "ever said that Grierson was a German spy, or that he had deserted to the enemy."' Ho fol-lowed-this with a reference" to Nimot, . and said that he had no sooner got to front than he went over to the enemy. Nimot had gone to the front in spite of questions asked in Parliament, and the result was that he deserted and we had a casualty list. The'only way in which witness could account for people mistaking his references to Nimot to apply to Grierson was thatghe was talking straight on; over interruptions, and some people may have thought the second reference was to the present case. . He had prepared most cai-eful notes of his speech with each subject headed. The notes ' were now broadcast, as he did not hear Of this action till six months after the -fleeting. He had, however, the notes from which he prepared his Speech. He had never made a note oi Griersoii as a German spy, nDr thought of that. He put in evidence yesterday's report of this case from Th e Po9tfi Wene( f to by Sir John Findlay. «I was annoyed at its accuracy," said witness. He also put in a report of Dr. Thacker's meetsL aS •r.l r- nted in «»'■»(»■ Zfeftlahd tT? j .? c°ntawed no reference to tn^wcrds alleged in the case ni! rV Vfs ob3fected to this. The report had been edited, and any hbellou. matter carefully omitted a t'L 3.^ Finiil*y Put the report in _t I « nfcwsp_p M report _f the meeting.

CROSS-EXAMINA-lON—T_D3-CAM.-"--PAIGN. "_-a were, Mr. Poison's storm troops?" suggested Mr. Neave. "I don't understand," replied" Dr. IThacker. Mt. Neave: "You were his mass of manoeuvre, and I suppose you were very disappointed that you did not constitute his army of occupation? —That is "yet .to come. You were in occupation of a part of the ekictorate?—l was staying at the Royal Oak Hotel, if that is what you mean. But you leased committee rooms in Willis-street?—Mr. Poison did. And you failed to pay the rent?—-The rent has been paid. By you?—By Mr, Poison. Were you not summoned by Mr. Radford for the rent?— Witness denied this," and Mr. Neave produced a note of the judgment in the Mercantile Gazette. Dr; Thacker .7That' was done behind" my back,--while I was-in Sydney. * In answer to his Honour, Dr. Thacker said the summons was not served on him, Did you not employ a Mr. Hickey to write advertisements for the campaign? —He tried to employ himself with me. Did he not summons yon ?=—He made 'a threat through my solicitors. Dr. Thacker admitted that a summons on this account had been received by his solicitor in Wellington. He had not stated in the Post Office Square that he was prepared to spend money like water to secure Poison's return. SERVICE OF A SUMMONS. At this stage, Mr. Neave produced from the Clerk of the Court the papers in the case Radford v. Thacker previously alluded to. The bailiff of the Court in Christchurch attached his affidavit of service that he had, served the summons on Dr. Thacker, by bringing the same under his notice, he refusing to accept same. His Honour: Was it brought in any way to your notice?— Not that I know of. Did the bailiff attend and offer you the summons?—Noi that I know- of; Mr. Neave-: The only conclusion we can come to is that the bailiff has made a false .affidavit?— The summons ..may have been left at my house. „, You have paid the debt?— No. But it has been paid?—By Mr. Poison. It was paid out of funds you supplied? —I supplied funds to Mr. Poison's secretary, but I don't know how they were disbursed. "WHITE-WASHING COMMISSION." Dr. Thacker said he had read the report of "the Grierson inquiry;' "' "" ■"""";- Mr. Neave: Do you know that the Commission completely exonerated Grierson of being Of German origin or sym-pathy?—ls-that in the report? I look • upon these commissions as white-washing. Do you know that he was acquitted "of being a:man of enemy origin?-^_es;- - And yet in preparation for this speech you deliberately wrote in your notes that Madame Boeufve and others found articles which were of such a nature that they' were led to believe that he";, was an "alien Hun"?—So they were led to believe. Was it not your object to lead this audience of 3000 people to believe'that he was an "alien Hun"?—No; but' to'urge that no man should be allowed . to go to the front who was not above suspicion. He- thought his reference -to Grierson was .quite legitimate . Although you knew that he was acquitted of being of enemy origin ?—Yes. Did you believe he was an "alien Hun" ?—No, I did not. ~ • Then why did you not tell.the audience that though Madame Boeufve and others believed it, you did not ? — I was not called upon. . ...... The fact is that any stick is; good enough to beat a dog?—l never beat a dog. It might have been any member of the forces so long as you made your point against the Government ?—No; I had my three special cases. Dr. Thacker denied the reference to. Grierson as a German spy or a deserter. He had not claimed any of the.credit for the investigation of Grierson's boxes. He admitted saying that the contractors who put cotton reels and rope ends in soldiers' mattresses should be put against a brick wall. Mr. Neave : Then if shooting is the punishment for a poor tradesmen ,who puts these things in soldiers' mattresses ; what .punishment would you -reserve for - the man who slanders the soldier who is this moment fighting the enemy in the trenches? —I don't.know. I should think the people who consult as to tha Kaiser's fate would be able to deal with him. ... Mr. Neave: I hope the jury will "know. Mr. Neave asked whether the tone of Dr. -hacker's admitted words coincided with the tone of the speech as reported in the Times under the heading "damn-, able scandals" ? —That is the reporter's, edition of my speech. If they report my words so as to sell their paper that is not my fault. Mr. Neave: In your reference' to Nimot you alleged that Sir James Allen had cabled to Sir Thomas MacKenzie to send a cablegram that Nimot had not gone over to the enemy?*—No, inquiring if he had gone over to the enemy. Then the words gone over to the enemy occurred in reference to Nimot ? —Yes. Dr. Thacker said that he pleaded--Par-liamentary privilege in stay of the action because he .was so, busy during theses--si.on that he could not possibly- attendthe case. ' Mr, Neave : You know, then, that Grierson was attached to the 45th Regiment?—l only learnt that yesterday. Had it not been- for the armistice, he might now have felt compelled to be i-on his way to the front? —Oh, no; he was not well enough. WHAT WAS NOT SAID. Henry L. Thompson, insurance agent, said he was present at the meeting, and followed Dr. Thacker's speech closely. He remembered a reference to Nimot, who, Dr. Thacker said, had gone over to the enemy. He remembered also the' re-' ference to Grierson, but he was certain that Dr. Thacker did not say- Grierson had deserted to the enemy. Mr. Young.: You know Dr. Thacker? —In ten years I have spent about half an hour talking to-him. He^is taking up your case?—l have, rot asked him to do so, His case had not been the subject of interviews with Dr. Thacker. He had not given the particulars to' Dry Thacker. .And you think Dr. Thacker will take lip your case without obtaining the particulars at the fountain head ?—Well,; I have not asked him toy Well, anyway,. he is taking up your case—the grievance you have against the Defence Department?—l hope he will. I think most members of Parliament will take it up. Mr. Young: He is helping you and you are helping- him? Witness said that about a fortnight after the election he heard references to (possible actions pending out of the meet-* ing. One of these suggested actions was jn reference to Grierson. Mr.. Young cross-examined witness closely as to the matter of Dr. Thacker's speech. The witness said he did not remember the words "alien Hun" being used; he was certain that, the words "German spy" were not. - ■ ■-„■■■ The fact is that you do not remember very much of what was said?—l remember everything sensational that was said ; other things may have slipped my mem-

Cr^o Sir John Findlay : It was utter nonsense to suggest that he was giving j-Lidence here because he hoped Dr.

■'■_Tw€Kep~w_'-il_^heT^~H_h'*"to| obtain redress for his wrongful imprisonment. Frank Newman, a Government employee. (Bellamy's), said he was at the Xown Hall-Meeting. Witness heard Dr. Thacker said that Nimot had gone over to the German Unas. He had not heard Dr. Thackersay that Grierson had gone over to the., German lines, nor that Grierson was-an arrant German spy.

To-Mr. Young, witness said he was sitting about the centre of the hall. The first time he had been asked to recall what happened at the meeting was when he received a letter of 18th December, 1918, from the firm of Findlay, Dalziell, and Howard.

. James David Martin M'lntyre, land agent, said that he was at the Town Hall meeting. Dr. Thacker did not say that Grierson went over to the enemy ; the words-were used about Nimot. fie was sure Dr. Thacker did not say Grierson was a spy or a deserter. vTo- Mr. Young: - Witness was an agent for' Dr. Thacker in hiring a certain hall in the Wellington North campaign. Witness had assisted Poison in the campaign. William A. Longhurst (a returned soldier) said he heard the portion of Dr. Thacker's. speech, which referred to Grierson. Witness did not hear Dr. Thacker saying- anything about Grierson going over to the enemy. The words were used about Nimot.

To Mr. Young witness said he assisted Mr. Poison in his campaign.

(Proceeding.)

[Yesterday's proceedings are reported on page 4.]