ALLEGED LIBEL

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 14, 16 July 1936, Page 22

ALLEGED LIBEL

SEAMAN'S;'CLAIM

SUIT AGAINST UNION

OFFICIALS

The hearing was continued in the Suprome- Court yesterday of a claim for. .£(500 damages for alleged libel. The plaintiff was Douglas Gibson, a member of the Seamen's Union, and the defendants were Finton Patrick Walsh and Felix Newfield.

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

In opening the, case for the defendant's,? Mr.r Hay said he thought it would be a convenience to the . Court and save "time if tie: spoke briefly at that juncture, then called evidence, leaving his submissions'* bri questions of law till a later, stage. There were, he said, three causes of action; Tlie first arose out. of-an -extract frqm what was known asthe "Brown' Book" published by the Seamen's Union. .The second cause of action arose out of an extract published from, a letter alleged to'havo been writteui'to Jacob John-ston,.-.of the Seamen's'-Union, in Austialia. The third cause of action arose out- of remarks made by 'one Osmond at a Seamen's Union meeting in New Zealand. As regarded the first and third causes of action, publication was not disputed. As to the second cause of action, counsel said, he would -ask the indulgence of the Court to defer calling evidence until the Court had found'that publication had been proved.

His Honour: I will have to hear argument -on- the question of whether there has been proof of publication.

Mr. Hay: It wiil be submitted, in the case of. publication being proved, that the words are capable'of not having a defamatory' meaning. '\

His Honour:' You/are also raising the question of privilege. .Mr.,. Hay. said that.. privilege was applicable to all three causes of action. As to the' first cause of action,' evidence would be given in regard to malice and to the t circumstances which-.gave rise to claim of privilege.1 That would be a question for the Court to decide. The word "rat" alleged to' have been used in regard to'the plaintiff in the third cause of action was mere abuse.

His Honour: Not necessarily defamatory ■:'.-■■••■- ■!■■'■•■■ ; ■

Mr. Hay said what he was concerned about was to show that there was a reasonable belief, on the part of the defendants that the statements were true. It was essential that there should be kept in mind, as the basis of the welter of events in 1934,, the fact of the struggle with the ship owners in respect to conditions of, work, wages, etc. That contest developed, into a life-and-death^struggle within .the union • itself, and led to a crisis in the affairs of the union.

His Honour: You do not justify the statement in regard to an alleged conspiracy between the plaintiff and another member .of. the union. It is a charge that never should have been made.

Mr. .Hay:.. One may feel that the charge is true, but-it may be difficult to prove.

His Honour said that as a result of what had occurred the plaintiff stated that he had been able to get very little work.

Mr. Hay remarked that the feeling in regard to .the plaintiff would no doubt die down soon.

His Honour replied .-that it was probably -more"-likely td grow. >

Mr. Hay said the other men associated with Gibsori did not'complain "of not being able to. get work owing -to the action of officials of the union.

His Honour said that the defendants, in effect, took "up 'the position that a crisis inHher affair V.of the union justified" them in disseminating 'libels against those who were 'not in agreement with,them. .... .

Mr. Hay contended that the executive was entitled to put statements before the men, enabling them to form their own conclusions.

His Honour said the statements should have been corrected by telling the men they were not true. There was a slur on a man, and, no attempt was made .to remove .it./ If an ordinary decent, sort of : .person found he had made a, mistake the first thing he did was'to try iovput .the matter right. Mr. Hay replied that the acts complained of, were done in the ordinary course of official duties.

The hearing .was adjourned,