FAIRBAIRN V. 'OTAGO DAILY TIMES

Evening Star, Issue 15540, 9 July 1914, Page 4

FAIRBAIRN V. 'OTAGO DAILY TIMES

ALLEGED LIBEL. [From Orra Own Reporter.] CHRISTCHURCH, July 9. The trial of the case of Andrew Pairbairn v. the' Otago Daily Times' was resumed at 10 o'clock this morning, the cross-examina-tion by Mr MacGregor of Andrew Fairbairn, the plaintiff, being continued. He said he knew Mr H. 0. Godfrey, who signed a certain letter to the Christchurch 'Press' dated September 17, 1912. Personally, he did not think Godfrey a man of very high standing in the community. Witness instructed his solicitor to take aption against him, but for the reason given yesterday he was advised to wait and take joint action. His Honor: Against the three newspapers—the 'Otago Daily Times' and the two Christchurch papers? Witness: No. Against the 'Otago Times' and against Mr Godfrey, as chairman of the. Merchants' Association. He did not consider that the Christchurch 'Press' attacked him as the ' Otago Daily Times' had done. If he had found that ho had no recourse against Godfrey he would have taken action against the Christchurch ' Press.'

Ansiroring farther questions, witness said that Godfrey's statement in Ms letter to th© Merchants' Association, that he (Fairbairn) was found guilty on all oounts, was absolutely untrue. He personally knew before the Commission sat that the association had been the means of enhancing the price of several commodities, but lie did not consider it indecent on his part, having such information in his possession, to accept the position of judge by sitting on the Commission. The Commission's duty was to report, and not to judge. Sir John Findlay objected to Mr MacGl'egor's questioning the witness on a lengthy letter, two-thirde of which was abuse. i

His Honor said ho understood that the letter was the basis of defendant's article. Mr MacGregor: That is so, and it has nevei- been replied to. Witness, continuing, said tl\e omission of reference to "' Reckitt's blue" in the official report w-as unimportant. He was not in tho confidence of the Merchants' Association, and therefore he could not say why they had refused to give evidence before the Commission.

Mr MacGregor: Don't you know that that is the true reason why you were sitting on it?

Witness: No one could have given that as the true reason. My own suspicion is that they were afraid to go into the box and testify on oath. Mr MacGregor: Before a biased Commission?

Witne'ss: Beforo a fair, open Commission.

Mr MacGregor was asking other questions, when The Judge said lie thought that counsel was travelling outside the case. Mi- MacGrcßor: I want to show your Honor that Mr Fair bairn wrongly went on the Commission. His Honor: He may, but that does not justify you in saying ho went there to '"grind his own axo," That is what we are her© to trv. Answering other questions, witness said that the reason of his hostility to the Merchants* "Association was that they adopted illeaal methods for getting advantages over their trade competitors. His own firm got 2i per cent, discount on sugar and other (inns 5 per cent. Moreover, the association blocked his firm by writing about them to other places. He did not call that " playing the Rams." He denied that lie and his cash customers formed a combine. The profits from their operations were participated in by the public. Re-examined by Sir John Frndlay, witness emphatically denied the imputation that ho coached "any of the witnesses before the Commission. So far from the Commission being a farce, the 'Economic Eevie%v,' a leading authority in America, said the report was far superior to anything on the subject that had appeared in the States. Other newspapers had not thrown open their columns to anonymous contributors to attack him, as the ' Otago Daily Times' did. As for the statement that members of the Merchants' Association would not givo evidence before the Commission because he (Mr Fair bairn) was sitting on it, it was a. fact that not one member of that association went into the box to meet the charges made wlTen the sugar case was before the Chief Justice. As to the injury sustained to his business sustained during his absence with foe Commission, there was a distinct falling off in the firm's returns; also his firm had been involved in correspondence all over the world. Attempts had been made to boycott him everywhere, and to stop his supplies of rice, etc. Plaintiff's case closed at 11 o'clock.

Mr MacGregor admitted that the ' Otago Daily Times' did comment freely on the doings of the Commission, and on Mr Fairbairn's action in accepting an appointment, when to do so was to sit in judgment on the acts of his trade competitors. As to the leading article, Mr Fairbairn's name was not mentioned. Mr Fairbairn put the cap on, and now asked the jury to say ho was not the guilty man. Not one witness would swear that Mr Bowyer did not refer in his evidence to Reckitt's blue. He (Mr MacGregor) would call witnesses who would swear that Mr Bowyer did make the statement about the blue. As an illustration of the allocation relating to not passing on the reductions to the public, it would also be shown that such a statement appeared in both the Christchurch newspapers. The ' Daily Times' article was written in the ordinary course, and the letter from Mr Fairbairn's solicitors did not take the usual course of asking for a withdrawal or an apology. Hi a Honor: They were not bound to do so as a matter of law.

Mr MacGregor : I do not say so ; but it is usual and right as a matter of justice. iur John Findlay i Would they have apologised ? Mr MacGregor: It is the usual thing with newspapers when they are shown to be in the wrong. Learned counsel went on to say that Mr Fairbairn's threat wa-s made in October, the writ was not issued till April in the next year, and proceedings were not taken till Mr Godfrey, the chairman of the Merchants' Association, left for England, and all documentary evidence had disappeared. Mr Godfrey's letter remained unanswered to this day, and he (Mr MacGregor) asked the jury to believe that it was substantially true, or he would have been brought to account before now. • The fact was that Mr Fairbairn brought ail this on himself by sitting on the Commission. He placed himself in a false position, and laid himself open to all sorts of charges and misconstructions. After hearing the evidence the jury must come to the conclusion that Mr Bowver and Mr Jamiesongave evidence which did not appear in the official record. As to the letter containing the phrneo about " grinding his own axe," if the jury believed that Mr Fairbairn really acted genuinely and in the interests of the country, no doubt the letter was libellous, but defendants contended that it was a fair conclusion from Mr Fairbairn's conduct in relation to the Commission. Defendants said that it was fairly deducible from the facts thai Mr Fairbairn was not properly interested in the inquiry, but was interested very keenly in showing up the iniquity of his business rivals. He invited the jury to conclude that Mr Fairbairn did have an opportunity to " grind his own axe," and took advantage- of that opportunity; in other words, that the statements of fact in ih<6 letter were true and the comments of the writer warranted. Mr Fairbairn had been hammering away for some time at the Merchants' Association, but not till the Hon. T. Mackenzie came into office was anything done. It was significant that the only commercial ■ man appointed on the Commission was Mr : Fairbairn. Why? Because Mr Fairbairn 1 was a friend of Mr Mackenzie, and because j ha was a man who had been stirring up ! things and wanted to get at the Merchants' Association. As to the letter eigned "R.W.," the jury would have little difficulty iu coming to the conclusion that the Commission was a farce, and wafi appointed to allow Mr Faibaira Jo further his own

interests, and at the same time to attack his business competitors, so that the loiter was fair comment.

John James Pollard, a reporter for the I' Lyttelton Times.' said he " long-handed " Mr Bowyor's evidence before the' Commission. Mr Bowyer referred to blue. Witness's report was correct so far as it went, and fairly conveyed Mr Bowyer's meaning. The official report omitted Mr Bowyers reference to Reckitt's blue.

To Sir John Findlay: He did not hear Mr Jamieson make reference to "Reckitt's blue."

The next witness (Henry Oakley) got as far as to say he remembered Sir Bowyer giving evidence, whereupon Sir John Findlay said ne was anxious to shorten the proceedings, and would admit that Mr Pollard's evidence was correct. Mr Bowyer did make reference to the blue.

Arthur W. Jamieson, assistant manager of the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative-Association, deposed to having been subpoenaed to give evidence before the Commission. Ho did so in a prepared lengthy statement, which was all read, with the exception of one passage puffing his own company. Witness's supplementary statement, which was handed to the Commission as he was leaving the box, contained a reference to Reckitt's blue. . He procured a copy of that statement from the secretary of the Commission, and took it to the newspapers for publication. When supplied with a copy of the evidence to 'ook through he did not search for the supplementary statement. He assumed it was there, and signed the statement as correct. Mr Jamieson, cross-examined by Sir John Findlay after lunch, said he would contradict Mr Pollard's assertion that a copy of his (Mr Jamieson's) supplementary statement, which went to the Commission, was in the hands of tlie reporters before it was submitted to the Commission. Witness would swear that he did not tell Miss Rout that he had handed a copy of his statement to some of the Commissioners at the Clarendon Hotel—that he at one time thought he handed it in at a sitting of the Commission, but that afterwards he remembered that he gave it to some of the members at the Clarendon Hotel. He would contradict Mies Rout if she swore to that effect. What he told Miss Rout, probably, two weeks ago, was that he handed four copies. o£ the statement to Mr Collins, secretary of the Commission. Witness stated that he read his statement to the Commission, but left out one part relating to his own company. He could not swear what it was he cut out. It was after reading his statement and having been cross-examined, and when he was leaving the witness-box, that he believed he handed his supplementary statement to Sir Collins.

Sir John Findlay: That was when your evidence was finished. The Commissioners did not know w-iiat was in it, and could not cross-examine from it. Is that not so? Witness: Yes. Sir John Findlay : Why didn't you read it to the Commission? Witness: I overlooked it.

Sir John Findlay: That can't be. You handed it to Mr Collins I'll tell you what happened. There is a deal of bitterness in that supplementary statement, and you are not a bitter man, and you deliberately refrained from reading it. Witness: That is not so. Sir John Findlay: Did you tell Mr Kelly, of the ' Press,' that you handed in that written statement as evidence?

Witness replied that he believed he did. Ha did not tell Mr Kelly that there had been no opportunity to cross-examine him on it. He instructed both papers to publish his statement in full, including the supplementary statement, which had never been read. "H« believed he had to pay something to s«t the statement published. What he received from Miss Rout and signed purported to be his evidence. If tho case is finished to-day it will be late.