ALLEGED LIBEL

Evening Star, Issue 15540, 9 July 1914, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL

FAIREAIRN' v. «OTAGO DAILYTTMES.'

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

[Fro\i Ot;e Ows Resorted.]

CHBISTCHTJRCH, July 9. Tl» trial of the libel action Andrew Pasrhaim t. the * Otago Daily Times' and 'Witness" Company was continued after oar last message yesterday at 3 p.m. before Mr Justice Sim and a special Jury, Eir John Findlay and Mr Wxipht appearing for the plaintiff, and. Sir W. 0. MaoGuegor and Mr Stringer, jun., for the company. John E. Thompson, cross-examined by. Mr MacGregor, said that he and Mr G. H. Thompson, members of the Import Company, were nephews of the Hon. T. Mackenzie. David Mackenzie, the other partner, was Mr Thos. Mackenzie's son. The cempanv had dealt with Pair bairn, Wright, and "Co. since 1901, the proportion ai business being pretty constant, and the ■ company paid cash It was not a fact that the company got whatever they could from Fairbairn, '"Wright, and Co., and from other firms only what Fairbairn's firm could not supply. Witness did not tell ytx Hows, when ho was travelling for Keill and Co., that ho had instructions Irom Mr Mackenzie not to give him any bnaJMSB. 'Mr MacGregor: Who provided the capital of the company? Witness said be did not think he should be called on to disclose that. Mr Mackenzie was not a creditor as well as a shareholder. He provided about half the capital. Ho did -iot do busmen for the company in London. To Sir John Findlay: Mr Fairbairn had bo interest in the company. —Mr Collins's Evidence. — John Win. Collins, Chief Clerk of Industrial Unions, said ho was clerk to the Cost of Living Commission, lie was pre- , TJooely attached to the Transport. Commission and the Marine Commission. The procedure as to taking evidence with the Cost of Living Commission was the same ta with the other Commissions. Mr Berry, of the 'Hansard' staff, reported Mr Bowver*9 evidence. Wit rices got from Mr Berry the typed transcript of Mr Sawyer's evidence, .ind tent it to Mr Bowyer. He (rot it back from Mr Bowyer, who had made no alterations. An alteration was made in the f;>rm of a question eix weeks later by Mr Hall, who put the. question. That was the only alteration. There was nothing in Mr Bowyer's evidence about a .-eduction in the duty on bin-?. Mr Bowyer made no communication to witness ibout omissions or alterations in hie evidence. Miss Bout's evidence zs to Mr Jamieson's evidence was correct. Witness « bad no instructions irom any Commissioner to suppress any evidence. It was not tampered with in"any way.' He sent Mr Jamieson's evidence to the printer just as it was received from Miss Rout. The only instructions he had as to the evidence* was that if any witness made any additions to his evidence he (Mr Colline) was to brinsj it under the notice of the chairman. He knew of nothing to testify the statement that evidence had Seen faked. To Mr MacGregor: The alterations made »v Mr Hall were" not referred to Mr Bowyer. They did net affect the evidence in the slightest. Sir John Findlay: It is done on every Commission. Mr MacGregor: Well, in this instance, at any rate, the evidence has been tampered with after leaving the witness's hands. Witness: Not tampered with. Mx MacGregor: Well, altered. In answer to further questions, Mr Collins said he took it that Mr Berry gave t correct report of Mr Bowyer's evidence, and in other sources made some mention ef Beckett's blue, and the official record did not. He would prefer to take the official record for it.

—Plaintiff's Evidence.— Andrew Fairbairn (the plaintiff) said, in the course of Ms evidence, that his firm fcad been carrying on business for 14 years. It was the Hon. T. Mackenzie who asked him to take a scat on the Commission. He sent a telegram stating that bis personal evidence was mors important, but that lie was anxious to nelp the Government in any way. The next thing he knew was that he was gazetted a member. No steps were taken to get him on the Commission, There was not a scintilla of troth, in the charges made in the article complained of. There were eight members of the Commission. Speaking for himself, the charges of suppressing or tampering with evidence were untrue. He went right through with the Commission, ■cd he Knew of "no case of a member of the Commission altering evidence or giving instructions to alter it. It was not true that Mt John Boss resigned when he saw the personnel of the Commission. The reason Mr Ross gave was_ that his partner was in bad health. Witness accepted a seat for no other purpose than to render a public service to the best of Ms ability. He had never in his life had business transactions with the Hon. T. Mackenzie. The relations of his company and the Import. Company were exactly the same a3 the relations of his company and all their other customers. When the merchants in Dunedin and Christchurch Tefused to give evidence on certain points ho realised that it was absolutely necessary that certain information in the possession of his firm should come before the Commission. He offered to retire, but the Commission decided that {hat was not necessary. His accountant {Mr Rows) was thereupon subpoenaed. His so-called "cross-examination at length ** of Mr Rowe consisted of si:i questions. As to the second libel, a charge of a member furthering his firm's interests, it could only refer to witness, because after Mr Ross's retirement no member was left who had a partner. As to furthering hJ3 interests, it was untrue. He did not know any other member when he joined the Commission. The Commission were absolutely unanimous in the finding that in certain businesses monopoits members. He openlv opposed it. He ■was not conscious of having done anything that would bear such a construction as that he had abused Ms position. To Mr MacGregor: The members of liis firm when the Commission sat were himself. Mr Wripht, Mr Maurice Lonis(ori. and Mr Alfred Louisson. Mr Wright ietrred recently. He did not trouble about fhe Merchants' Association so long as they did not interfere with his business and attempt to set illegal advantages. The Merchants' Association had been doinp so since April, 1912. The formation of that association led to illegal advantages to its members. He openly opposed it. He could prove that it was a pecuniary loss to him to sit on the Commission." His business suffered in consequence of his sitting on the Commission, and he knew it would before he took his seat. It involved Ms firm in acrimonious correspondence with firms in Europe and America and elsewhere. He did not know why he was appointed. He could only suggest that it was because he knew three of the Ministers, and had business with two of them (Mr Laurenson and Mr Buxton). Witness knew of the Hon. T. Mackenzie when that .gentleman was a boy, but knew Mm personally only since 1910. It was an absolute falsehood that \vhen he started in business Mr Mackenzie helped Ttim with a guarantee. He had no guarantee from anybody. His firm attacked tie Merchants' Association, and when he ■was appointed against his will he thought It would have been cowardly to refuse to go on. His firm had suffered by the operations in sugar, and hftd made a "claim for damages of over £§oo from one firm (bavin and Co.). Witness protested against answering further about that mattar, soeing that it was bound to come before th* Court. Hfs Honor said he thought that Mr SfacGrenor had stone far enoujfb, Witnsis. further question**!, said hp had no weollectkm of Mr Bowyer saline anything in his evidence about Reekiti's blueMr MacGrestCir asked Mr F-irbaim whv he had not taken action against the Christchurch * Press *. in respect to a letter written by H. C. Godfrey two years ago? Witness replied that lie had been advised Iry Ms solicitors to take action against the ' Otajjo Dai]? Times * fiedL

Mr MacGregor: And see how you get on. B And now you are out for £260 for cause of action ?

Sir John Findlay : Or a retraction and apology. Mr MacGregor : Which ne have never been asked for. « Tha Court roae for the day at 5.10.