BUS STRIKE LIBEL SUIT

Evening Star, Issue 25956, 22 November 1946, Page 10

BUS STRIKE LIBEL SUIT

UNION! SECRETARY'S CLAIM EVIDENCE OF 1 HERALD ' EDITOR (P.A.) AUCKLAND, Nov. 21. The rehearing of the action for £6OO damages for alleged libel brought by (the secretary of the Auckland Drivers’ Union, Lawrence Gerard Matthews, against Wilson and Horton Ltd., publishers, was continued in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Callan and a jury to-day. Continuing his evidence, Charles Walter Tootell, a reporter on the ‘ Herald,’ produced bis notes of interviews with the plaintiff in September, 1945. On the night of September 9, when the plaintiff called at the ‘Herald’ office, witness knew of the announcement by the Minister that a disputes tribunal .would be set up, but when he suggested. that “it was all fixed up,” the plaintiff replied, “Oh, no, pal. Car from it. l’he position is not good enough, and we are not going to stand it. We have played around, for long enough, and this time we aini to get Satisfaction. The tribunal will sit this week or you will see what will, happen.” Asked if the men were likely to strike if they did not get satisfaction, the plaintiff had replied: “ They -will strike, all right. It is in the hands of the Drivers’ Committee, and they are going to meet in the morning. We are not going to be pushed around by the employers any'lotiger. We will get what we want tills, time or “they will know all about it.”.:

Witness added that when he asked about the objectipn to the appointment of a magistrate to the tribunal, the plaintiff Said : “ O’Brien has suggester Paterson, from Hamilton, but we are not going to have that. We had him once before and we lost. If we have him again we will lose again. We don’t mind Bill Freeman because he is a good Labour man, hut we won’t have Paterson.” The plaintiff then proceeded to dictate a statement for publication that was published the following morning. The editor of .the New Zealand ‘Herald’ since August, 1942, Leslie Knox Munro, said he wrote the editorial which was the subject of claim, after discussing the matter with his reporters arid after perusing a file of clippings dealing with the dispute from December, 1943. It was part of his duty as editor to, consider and watch the- development of. matters that affected the community. At the end of 1943; during: the whole of 1944, and for the major. part of 1945, the war was at its height, ' and he considered that continuous. and. efficient transport was necessary 1 frif : its Successful prosecution. Any interruption was bound to affect the industrial life of the communityi Witness outlined in detail his interpretation of " statements made by the plaintiff in forming the conclusions on which - he based , the leading article. He ’had considered various- statements to be . misleading and provocative, and he had felt that when, in January, 1944. the- plaintiff announced the intention to maintain a de-registered organisation, even in the face of the War Emergency Regulations, he was using the word “we,” not as mere agent of the union but for himself and itsmembers. • In the case of the striked which occurred on Sunday, January.iT6, witness believed, frorri: his examination of the statements of" 'leaders, including Matthews, that what‘ they :hhd said had, incited the men• to strike. He had also viewed the plaintiffs reported criticism of the Arbitration Court as untrue and putting the men in a frame of mind -in .which they would resort to direct.action.- The statements made by the plaintiff’ to the reporter, C. W. Tootell, on. Septeinber 9, had, in witness’s opinion,. shown Matthews to be speaking as the .leader of the men and as taking the matter into his own hands. When he .wrote the editor* 1 • he had felt that the. strike was the culmination of the/leadership of Matthews and Muller, and that, as editor, he owed .a duty to-express his opinion upon that leadership. Answering Mr Haig, witness said the editorial on the bus strike was written on the basis of his duty to the community arid without anv political motives whatever. He had hoped the Government would have the matter dealt with constitutionally and not as the result of an intimidating strike'in 1 which, in his - opinion, Matthews was the leader.

Counsel will address the jury and His Honour will sum up when the hearing' is resumed to-morrow.