SEAMEN'S UNION

Evening Post, Issue 12, 14 July 1936, Page 11

SEAMEN'S UNION

OFFICIALS SUED

ALLEGED LIBEL

CLAIM FOR £600 DAMAGES

In the Supreme . Court yesterday afternoon the hearing of an action for alleged libel was continued. The plaintiff was Douglas Gibson, a member of the Seamen's Union, and the defendants were Fintan Patrick Walsh and Felix Newfield, officials of the Seamen's Union.

Mr. Justice Blair presided on the Bench. Mr. L. K. Wilson and Mr. Lan Macarthur appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. P. Hay for the defendants.

The case had been opened at previous sittings of' the Court. The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleged that the- defendants falsely and maliciously wrote and published certain words concerning- the plaintiff to all members of the unions affiliated to the Federated Seamen's Union in New Zealand and to the general secretary of the. Australian Seamen's Union. He claimed £600 damages.

In their defence the defendants denied the allegations of the plaintiff, and said that if it were proved that they wrote and published the words complained of the words were bons fide and without malice, and were privileged as coming from them in their official capacity of general president and general secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union. TLAINTIFF'S CASE. In his evidence, Gibson said that he came to New Zealand iii 1930, and brought credentials and a clearance from the Australian union before joining the Wellington Seamen's Union. He first heard the suggestion that his activities in the Australian union were I not considered proper from several men who attended a Lyttelton meeting. He was informed that certain statements made against him were included in. the minutes of a meeting of the union at tyttelton. He called upon Walsh at-Wellington, and asked him to refute the charge. " Walsh ignored the request. He also charged Newfield with going out of his way to request members' to peruse . the Lyttelton minutes and said'they would find out "what sort of a man Gibson was." There was bitter hostility between Walsh, Newfield, and witness prior to the Greymouth' strike of 1934. Mr. Wilson then handed to witness an alleged report of a speech by Walsh, which, he said, reflected on the plaintiff. FOR WHAT REASON? , His Honour asked the reason for putting such statements on the minutes. Was that the ordinary practice? His understanding of minutes of a meeting was simply a record of the business done. He had never before seen minutes like those produced. It seemed they were for the purpose of recording all the unkind things. If a man got up at a meeting and said that another person was a thief, that was slander; and if a person wrote such a statement, he fathered the statement. Unsubstantiated statements could not be written and circulated. Did counsel contend that an official had to record a lot of recrimination and call it privileged?

Mr. Hay replied that officials of the organisation would be in an unfortunate position if they could not" record the proceedings in the way they had done. The circumstances must be taken into account. The seamen's organisation was a peculiar one.

"EXTRAORDINARY POSITION."

His Ho~nour said the official had no duty to disseminate libel or publish irrelevant matter. It was an extraordinary position. No man's reputation would be safe in the circumstances.

The hearing was adjourned until today.

On the Court resuming today, the plaintiff, Douglas Gibson, : continued his evidence in support of his claim, and was further cross-examined in regard to certain statements in the reserved judgment of the Court on his claim against the Wellington union for wrongful expulsion. He was also cross-examined as to his action in connection with the voting on the suggested shipping strike on July 30, 1934. His Honour asked what bearing this had on the case.

Mr. Hay: The alleged foundation of the defamatory statement in the first and second cause of action was the allegation that Gibson and others were instrumental in trying to get cer- • tain action taken in connection with the voting on the strike. I contend that the officials of the union had reasonable cause for taking the course they did. It was really a contest between a constituted authority and a disrupting' minority. Mr. Wilson: That is not the position. In reply to counsel, plaintiff stated at some length the course taken by him and others in respect to the events referred to. EXPULSION yLEBISCXTE. Mr. Hay (to plaintiff): The whole of the matters affecting your expulsion from the union went to a plebiscite vote? —Yes. The result of that vote was that there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the expulsion?— That is so. Do you agree that there was a full opportunity given to you, as well as to others, to have your and their case put before the council?— There was never any evidence given to me. What is the, evidence to support a charge? Between July 26 and October 2 you were not asked for an explanation of your course of action?—l was not asked j for an explanation b.y any official j member of the organisation.

His Honour: In. regard to what?— My conduct' throughput the Greymouth dispute, ■ I take it.

What was the charge against you?— Charges had been made, and I wanted to know the ground of the charges. Mr. Hay: There was evidence given in support of the charges..

His Honour: Plaintiff says there were no definite charges.

The hearing is proceeding.