ACTION FAILS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 112, 7 November 1935, Page 7

ACTION FAILS

-ALLEGED DEFAMATION

AUCKLAND ELECTION CASE

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, November 6.

The action in which William McLaren, a former president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union,! claimed £500 for alleged libel in the' publication "Why?" arising out of the | Auckland mayoral election in May, ] was concluded before Mr. Justice Callan and the jury in the Supreme Court today. , | The defendants, for whom judgment ,was given, were A. E. Robinson, as I j editor of the publication; "Farming ■ First," Limited, proprietors, and the i Queen City Press, printers. Messrs. Haigh and Henry "appeared for the plaintiff, Messrs. Goulding and Sexton conducting the defence.

Addressing the jury for the defence, Mr. Goulding said the jury must be satisfied that the statements complained of referred to the plaintiff. The/defence was that the article was not defamatory, in any part and was not written" concerning McLaren. If the jury believed the statements applied to McLcfjn there was the defence of justification, in that the statements were true, and the further defence of fair ■' comment • could be found. Newspapers were entitled to criticise men in public office. 'While comment might v be derogatory it did not follow that it might not be fair.

Mr. Haigh said no writer could escape judgment for libel because the offence could not be pinned down to particular words or sentences. He suggested ■ that "Why?" contained a gross libel against Mr. Davis and the article showed the type of man Robinson was in trying to besmirch his opponents, in this. case* Mr. Davis, a man with money.. »

Mr. Haigh asked whether the article conveyed to reasonable people the impression that the Labour people were putting forward Mr. Sayegh as a candidate for Mayor instead of Mr. H. G. R. Mason, M.P., so that! Mr. Davis could win. That would be deceiving the rank and file of the party and would mean disloyalty and secret treachery on the part of the leaders, among whom, it was contended, McLaren could be placed. Mr. Haigh thought the impression of the article was that of "a sinister conspiracy between: Mr. Davis and the Labour leaders," and to support a suggestion that McLaren was hand in glove with Mr. Davis.' The incident regarding the bailing of men arrested in connection with the Free Speech Council meeting in Beresford Street, Newton, was introduced. ,

His Honour said the case was of considerable importance to those concerned. According to the. authorities, a statement was none the less defamatory because it was not intended to be so. It would be only a careless, perverse, or uncharitable reading of the article which could cause any suggestion of bribery of McLaren to be interpreted, and even --libellers were not responsible for a perverse misconstruction of what they had written. Continuing, his Honour said a. further submission for the plaintiff was that the article ;contained .an accusation of treachery on the part of McLaren -towards his own people, the watersiders and the rank and": file of the Labour,, Party-, v- -Whether such meaning could be extracted from the article was a matter for the jury. His .'.Honour commented that libel cases: had a curious resemblance. The first thing Robinson did ; was to ask McLaren to show what was wrong, and Mr. Goulding had done similarly when McLaren was in the witnessbox. It was possible to feel instinctively that an injury had been caused by a particular writing and yet it might be extremely difficult to explain precisely why it was felt there.was an injury. • ' , ■

The purpose of the article seemed to have been to do harm to the candidature .of Mr. Davis,,said his Honour. The Court was not , concerned with whom Robinson was aiming it, but with whether he hit McLaren. If in the course of trying to discredit Mr. Davis Robinson,had done harm to McLaren, it did. not, matter in the least that the object of the article was quite different. Justification was a defence if the facts were true. There were also limits to fair comment. A critic was not allowed, even with a public man, to be wrong irj his facts. , .

■After a long retirement the jury returned a decision in favour of the defendants by ten to two.

Judgment was granted the. defendants with costs according to scale and other costs requested.