Objectiion To Term Communist Leads To £3500 Libel Claim

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22951, 20 May 1949, Page 6

Objectiion To Term Communist Leads To £3500 Libel Claim

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 19. An action in which Leslie Edwards, journalist, of Wellington, is claiming £3500 as damages from the New Zealand Press Association Limited for alleged libel in that he lias been named as a leading Communist in a message distributed by the association to various newspapers began in the Supreme Court this morning before the Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O'Leary, and a jury of 12. Counsel engaged are Mr. Trevor Henry, of Auckland, with him Mr. KT. Matthews, Wellington, for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. G. G. Watson, with him Mr. Herbert Taylor, both of Wellington, for the defendant association.

The plaintiff was stated by his leading counsel to be 32 years of age and an employee of the commercial branch of the National Broadcasting Service. The statement of claim sets out the plaintiff is a journalist, a radio broadcaster. a script writer and an advertising . specialist carrying on his profes- • sion in the city of Wellington and depends for his entire livelihood upon the goodwill of newspapers, the advertising agencies and the New Zealand Broadcasting Service.

Named as Leading Communist

The statement said on or about December 3, 1948, the Press Association received from one of its servants or agents in London, and falsely and maliciously published to a large number of newspapers throughout New Zealand, a message naming the plaintiff as a leading Communist. The plaintiff alleged further that the words used meant that the plaintjff is a person who does not bear true allegiance to the Government and people of New Zealand, or of the British Commonwealth and is actively working by every means in his power to bring about the downfall of the constitution and society, who bears allegiance to a foreign power, who would be a traitor to his own country and is a fomentor of industrial unrest.

The plaintiff claimed that he had been greatlv injured in his reputation and health and brought into odium, ridicule and contempt.

Among Four New Zealanders

Mr. Henry, in opening to the jury for the plaintiff, said the message was published in nine newspapers. In the message the plaintiff was named among four New Zealanders who were said to be among 500 of the Communist leaders outside the Soviet Union. It was stated that the list was one compiled for the Government of the United States.

“If the things published concerning the plaintiff were true,” said Mr. Henry, “there could be no libel, but the foundation of this case is that they are false statements.” The plaintiff Edwards said in evidence that he was married and living with his wife and family in Wellington. His present occupation was that of a radio-script writer for the commercial radio division. He was an old boy of the Christchurch Boys’ High School. Between 1934 and 1936 he was on the literary staff of the Christchurch Press.

Publicity Officer

In 1937 he joined the staff of 3ZB, writing advertising copy and acting as publicity officer for the station. On Sunday evenings he took part in broadcasts on world affairs. In 1939 he transferred to Palmerston North, leaving there in 1942 tor the head office. Wellington. In 1943 he suffered an illness and did not return to duty until 1945, having been in a sanatorium. Later he took six months leave of absence to organise funds for the Southern Cross, Wellington, eventually resigning his position to become a leader writer and literary editor for that newspaper. In 1947 his health broke down again, necessitating further sanatorium treatment. He was not fit to return to newspaper work and took work on a contract, basis with the commercial broadcasting division. When the article complained of appeared in the newspapers he had already told the broadcasting service that ha would be terminating his engagement in order to take up an appointment with an advertising firm. Claim on Another £3509 Writ

Cross-exarflined by Mr. Watson, the plaintiff said he was also claiming on another writ another £3500 from the National Party newspaper. Freedom, in respect of the same matter. That issue was sat down for trial at the current sittings * The message, he agreed, was taken from a report published by the Government printing office. Washington. With one exception he considered it to be a fair summary. It was the function of the Press Association, he agreed, to collect news for publication, but he did not consider the document published in America was a matter of great public interest to the democracies. Offer of Redress

Edwards said that alter the publication of the matter. complained of he was offered the publication, with the same type and space, of any statement he might wish to make in contradiction of the original matter. He had always insisted, however, that the newspapers and the Press Association should themselves vouch that he was not a Communist, or a member of the Communist Partv and he had made it plain that he would still want damages.

Mr. Watson: It did not matter what they offered in the way of statements in the press, of payment of your costs, you were still going to try to make money out of the happening?

The plaintiff: I still wanted damages.

The witness agreed that on January 26 an apology was published in newspapers that had published the original matter.

Mr. Watson: Are you suggesting it is defamatory to you to sav you are a prominent worker for the Communist Party? The plaintiff: Yes. Do vou also claim it to be defamatory to say you are the author of a number of pro-Soviet and anti-American publications? —Not defamatory. It is inaccurate.

Is it defamatory to call anyone a Communist?—Yes, if he is not a Communist. '

Legality of Party

The witness agreed that Communist parties were legal political parties in Britain. Australia and New Zealand and that in Britain there were a certain number of Communist members of Parliament.

Mr. Watson: Would it be defamatory to call a man Conservative or a Liberal cs» a member of any other political party? The plaintiff: No. At this Doint Mr. Henry, for the plaintiff, interposed that the action was

based on the contents of the whole message, not just on calling the plaintiff a Communist.

Ilis Honour said that he, too, would have to point that out to the jury.

In replv to further Questions by Mr Watson the witness said that he would disagree that the Dean of Canterbury was a proclaimed Communist unless he sav/ evidence of it Professor Haldane and Mr. George Bernard Shaw, he agreed, were. When the witness was questioned about whether Professor Haldane and Mr. Shaw were professed Communists, the iudse intervened: “But Shaw professes q' lot of things.” Would Not Seek Friendship

Mr. Watson: You would not seek the frinedship of Communists, or seek work with them if the word Communist had the dreadful meaning you ascribe to it?

The plaintiff: No. Do you agree that Russia is the home of communism? —Yes.

And the present Russian 1 leaders are the leading Communfsts in the world? —Yes.

To further questions the witness said he had been in organisations in which there were Communists and had been a prominent member of the Society for Closer Relations with Soviet Russia as well as being on the editorial committee of that organisation’s bulletin. In 1947 and 1943 he was on the executive' of the society and in the latter year attended meetings of the executive. Mr Watson: Your associates on that executive included well-known prominent Communists? h . The plaintiff: Two, 1 think. He had .evinced no objection to sitting under the. chairmanship of one of them a Mr. Griffen. who was a delegate to Moscow in 1938, continued the witness He said he was also a member of the New Zealand Labour Partv, the«*xecutiv@?of. which had decided that the Society for Closer Relations with Soviet Russia was a Communist auxiliary. --