ELECTION SEQUEL

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 111, 6 November 1935, Page 10

ELECTION SEQUEL

CLAIM FOR £500

DEFAMATION ALLEGED

ACTION AGAINST EDITOR

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, November 5.

1 The hearing of the claim made by William McLaren, ex-jjresident of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, against Albert Edward Robinson, for £500 for alleged defamation of char-j acter, was continued in the Supreme Court this afternoon. The claim was based upon an article published in , "Why?" a journal devoted to the ad- • vocacy of the Douglas Social Credit - Plan, of which the defendant was 1 editor, and was a sequel to the last , Auckland Mayoral campaign. Mr. Haigh, for the plaintiff, said the , municipal elections were held in April - and there were three candidates— | i Messrs. E. Davis, J. Sayegli, and A. J. C Sallworthy, Several candidates were : in a ballot conducted by the Labour ' Party, and they included Messrs. H. G.. R. Mason and Sayegh. Mr. Sayegfl was successful at the ballot. Following the announcement that Mr. Sayegh had been selected as Labour candidate • for the Mayoralty the article which ' formed the basis of the present action was published. It was not denied that ; the defendant Robinson, editor of "Why?" had written the article. The ' article was brought under the notice ' of McLaren just after publication. Mc--1 Laren went to see Robinson, and told ' him the article accused him (Me- ' Larch) of bribery and corruption, and [ was injuring his reputation. Robinson ; asked what portion, and McLaren said : ''The whole of it. :> McLaren asked for ' a public apology and Robinson replied, "That is nothing to what I've got on 1 you," said Mr. Haigh. ' Robinson refused to give an apology. ; On June 18, Mr. Haigh said he was 1 instructed by McLaren to write to ; Robinson requesting an apology, but it ; was not forthcoming, and later the present proceedings were instituted. Mr. Haigh said that the word ■ "stumer" used in one of the headings of the article meant something containing dishonesty, end he quoted from a late dictionary which defined "stumer" as a slang word of unknown origin meaning a sham, such as a forged cheque. His Honour: Stumer, I take it, is a sham, a pretence. Mr. Haigh: That is so. His Honour: Supposing the meaning of this article is that the whole Labour Party organised a scheme in putting up a candidate who they did not expect to win because they considered Mr. Davis would be friendly to them; in putting up a candidate they did not expect to win, would not that be a political sham? , Mr. Haigh: According to this article there was a sham as far as the leaders of the Labour Party were concerned. The article implies that there was no intention to put Mr. Sayegh in as| Mayor, but so far as the rank and file j of Labour were concerned, the whole thing was bona fide; therefore the leaders were misleading the rank and file. Counsel said that the article suggested that the Labour Party had put up Mr. Sayegh as their candidate knowing that he had no chance .of being elected, and to ensure the elec- ! lion of Mr. Davis, who would be | friendly to the party. j PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. I McLaren gave evidence of making | bail arrangements for the men concerned in the Free Speech Council meeting, and said the money was returned to Mr. Davis, who said he had been approached regarding the matter. After the article appeared it was necessary to call a special meeting of) the Waterside Workers' Union for witness to explain his position. The union then stood by his actions but he felt the contents of the article affected his status when he was defeated in July as president of the organisation. Cross-examined, plaintiff denied that he had been principally concerned with the statement attributed to him about "Communists." This was untrue, as was also a statement attributed "o Mr. Davis about not caring whether the money was lost. Robinson claimed < he had no intention of injuring witness. McLaren added he did not have a vote in the Labour ballot. The selection was in the hands of delegates to the Labour Representation Committee. He said there had been "a hue and cry" when it was known that Mr. Sayegh topped the selection ballot, and there were 'inquiries from headquarters at Wellington. His Honour: They came up to say, "What have you been doing to Mason?" Mr. Goulding to witness: Had there been a Mayoral contest between Messrs. Mason and Sayegh alone, what would, your view of the result be? . Witness: It would all depend who had the official backing of the Labour Party machine. Witness said he was "awai-4 that "Why?" was published in the interests of the Douglas Credit Movement, but he was not far advanced in the opinions of the movement. His Honour: If we could get an expert in the stand to explain the system I would listen to him. Witness agreed that the purpose of the paper was to attack those persons commanding money. COMMENT ON WATERFRONT. Evidence was given by two waterside workers that the article caused ■ considerable comment about the plaintiff, and one thought he had been "somewhat under a cloud" on the waterfront. Mr. Goulding, for the defence, moved for a nonsuit on. the grounds that the words in the ordinary sense were not defamatory of plaintiff personally, and that the innuendoes alleged were not the natural, reasonable, or necessary inferences to be drawn. His Honour said any suggestion of inference that the plaintiff received ' bribes could not be supported, and Mr. Haigh agreed to withdraw this alle- • gation. Prefacing the evidence for the defence, Mr.' Goulding said it had to be shown for the claim that the article actually pointed towards McLaren in the way suggested. There was also the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest. The defendant, Albert Edward Robinson, secretary of the Auckland provincial branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, said McLaren first approached him as a fellow-unionist and claimed that the article would put an ■ and to his industrial career. Witness : ihen Enid he had kept from the article| material which might have been injurious to the plaintiff, and he contended that Ine complaints were not about the truth of the article. No apology was deiTit.ndcd, although witness offered to '■ give what satisfaction he could. ; Cross-examined, Robinson said he ] considered there was corruption in politics in New Zealand, and he had : wiitten articles to that effect. ) Asked what his "fierce suspicions" • v/ere, he said they were that the Labour Party was "running a stumer" ( in connection with the election, but , should the party have tried to get Mr. , Davis in as Mayor that would be its own business. His meaning was that. • some of the Labour people wanted Mr. ] Mason out of the way. His suspicions 1 were not convictions, but one suspicion ' was that a majority of the party pre- ] fcrred Mr. Davis to Mr. Sayegh as