£5000 DAMAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 6, 7 July 1926, Page 10

£5000 DAMAGES

AUCKLAND LIBEL CASE

CLAIM BY MR. HALL SKELTON

ELECTION PROPAGANDA.

(By Telegraph.)

(Special to "The Evening Post.")

AUCKLAND, This Day.

An action for £5000 damages v.-as commenced this morning before Mr. Justice Stringer and a special jury, when Alfred Hall Skelton, barrister and solicitor, sued Henry Hastings Seabrook and Thomas Farrell, printers, for alleged libel contained in printed matter relating to the 1925 election campaign. Sir John Fiudlay and Mr. E. W. Inder represented the plaintiff, and Mr. G. P. Finlay and Mr. H. M. Rogerson the defendants. It was alleged that on 28th October, 1925, defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published ju the form of a circular headed, "Protestant Political Association of New Zealand," and signed H. H. Seabrook, president of- the llqskill group, the following: "To members of the group. Since Roskill became an electorate six years ago the association consistently supported Mr. Vivian H. Potter, not because of party affiliations but on account of his staunch support of the principles advocated by the P.P.A. Each Vector is now called upon to consider which candidate coming to the election could best eivc effect to the principles of equal rights Tor aH and special privileges for none. Mr Potter has shown himselt thus pledged in readiness to speak in Parliament m advocacy and defence of those P™olPles- ■ He is again opposed by Mr. Hall Skelton, one whose declared ambition is to smash the P.P.A. That is, he will willingly wreck the only organisation pledged to great democratic principles. This declaration will no doubt again secure Mr. Hall Skelton the Roman Catholic vote, usually given where it will best serve its interests, whatever the effect on the country. It cannot be forgotten that Mr. Hall Skelton acted us representative of the party seeking to disintegrate the Empire, having publicly eulogised Michael Collins, who was leader of a gang of atrocious murderers and condemned and hanged for crimes against the Empire. Thoughtful men and women recalling such things cannot surely choose as their representative a man who had manifested sympathy with those who, when the Empire was in the throes of a life struggle, were engaged within it in a policy of murc!|r to hinder the prosecution of the Great War and to secure the Empire's overthrow." The plaintiff contended that the circular meant that he was disloyal, in sympathy with "the murderers, and identified himself with and shared the views of a party seeking to bring about the disintegration of the' Empire and hinder the people in the prosecution of the recent war against the Germans and Austria. A second cause of action alleged that on the same date the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published a circular headed, "Hall Skelton and the Roskill Electiors," an extract from the "New Zealand Sentinel"' of Ist October, 1925. Hall Skelton as ho ia Known.'' The plaintiff contended that this circular set him out as being disloyal, that he was the representative of and identified with, and in sympathy with persons who held murder to be a sacred duty and who engaged in treasonable practices. On the first'cause the plaintiff claimed £2000 damages, and on the second cause £3000. , , • *■ The defence was a denial of printing or publication, but that if they were published, the words were not intended _to j mean what was alleged, the publication being privileged; and that the , plaintiff suffered no damage. . Sir John Findlay, in opening, said the case would not give the jury much difficulty. Mr. Farrell was more or less a technical defendant, there being no grudge against him. Unfortunately a certain element of sectarianism had grossly disfigured action during the campaign. Mr. Skelton had studiously avoided reference to the P.P.A. or the # defendant Seabrook, but a few days prior to the election the latter fired a foul shot, malignant in its entirety, in the form of a circular containing wild and bitter words. Not content, Seabrook the same day printed and published the extract from the "New1 Zealand Sentinel." The jury was not dealing with an irresponsible man. Seabrook had done the same thing three years before. Here was a man, dipping his hand on the most vitriolic stuff, and displaying energy in distributing his efforts among the people with amazing i generosity. It was important to note I that where malice amounted to almost a crime, a jury should award heavier clamaces. There had been long and .cool deliberation, and this left Seabrook no escape. In the course of his address Sir John Findlay mentioned that Seabrook, shortly after the election, was convictod .of a breach of the Electoral Act. Criticising the defence, counsel observed that it really meant it was, hopeless for Seabrook to rely, on it. Several witnesses gave evidence of the distribution of alleged' libellous circulars. The plaintiff was called shortly before luncheon.