ALLEGED LIBEL

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 13, 15 July 1936, Page 8

ALLEGED LIBEL

DAMAGES CLAIMED

UNION OFFICIALS SUED

The hearing of the case in which Douglas Gibson, a member of the Seamen's Union, is suing Fintan Patrick Walsh and Felix Newfield, officials of the Seamen's Union, lor £600 damages for alleged libel, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The plaintiff 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.

The defendants said that if it were proved that they wrote and published the words complained of, the words were 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.

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.

Further cross-examined by. Mr. Hay, the plaintiff said that a resolution was carried at a meeting of some, members of the Seamen's Union declaring that the plebiscite that was taken ; was not the plebiscite that was asked for. In May, 1933, meetings were held to consider certain; recommendations, but the recommendations were put into effect before;the meetings had time to consider them, and* that was one of the things that caused the troubles. The meeting held at Dunedin on May 4, 1933, fell into line with the Wellington attitude. The report of May was dealt with in Wellington in June. Plaintiff was present at the Auckland meeting when the report came up on June 6.

His Honour said that the defendants did not plead justification for the statements made. They might say that they admitted they were false, but they thought they were true when they made them. .

Mr. Hay said it was open to the defendants to show that there was reasonable belief on their part that they were true.

.. His Honour: You say they are not deliberately xmtruA lam only dealing with the question: are they true or untrue? The law does not encourage people to disseminate libel.

Mr. Hay (to plaintiff): Do you remember the meeting in July, 1934?— Yes: •

Did you go to the union office and say you wojild clean Walsh up?—l do not remember going to the office about that time; and I do not remember saying 1 was ;going to clean Walsh up. That is notimy way of doing things.

His Honour: You would rather spring a surprise?—-Yes.

Mr. Hay (to plaintiff): You we're a member of the council of the union. Were you, iapart frbnv the council, in communication with certain sections of the union? : :

His Honour said that plaintiff might have wanted other, Sections to know the position. '...'"••■. ~.' ■■

. Mr. Hay'. said there; was a small coterie of some, sections who were in favour of certain action, and therefore plaintiff's activities had a special significance.. , -, '"■■ ■■■ ■■ :,. -■"•■.■■

The hearing was, adjourned till today.