TWO PRINTERS.

Grey River Argus, 8 July 1926, Page 5

TWO PRINTERS.

SUED FOR £5,000. By Mr Hall-Skelton. AUCKLAND, July 7. Justice Stringer and a special jurj were occupied at the Supreme Court in hearing the action involving a claim for £5OOO as damages by Alfred Hall-Skelton, barrister, against Henry Hastings Seabrook, and Thomas Farrell, printers, for an alleged libel during the election campaign last year. A cupular was issued by the I’rotestaiys Political Association signed by Seabrook, as president of the Ros kill group, in which district Potter and Skelton were Parliamentary candidates. The circular attacked Skelton for having publicly eulogised Michael Collins whom it described as a “leader of a gang of atrocious murderers,'’ and spoke of plaintiff as having “manifested sympathy with the enemies of the Empire, who- wished to secure its overthrow.’’ The second cause of the action was the alleged matter in the “New Zealand Sentinel,” which plaintiff claimed set him out a s being disloyal, and as a representative of persons who held murder a sacred duty. On the first claim he asked £2OOO and on the second, damages. THE DEFENCE. The defence will be as follows: —(1) A denial of publication. (2) That the words complained of were not intended to mean what was alleged, nor did they bear a defamatory meaning, (3), that the words were not libel, and so far as they stated facts, were true in substance and fact; (4) that the opin ions or comments were honest criticism in the public interest; (5) Further that the publication was privi leged, and that defendant had suffer ed no damage.

SKELTON’S DELEGATE EXPENSES QUESTIONS IN CROSSEXAMINATION. AUCKLAND, July 7. In the libel ease, Mr Finlay asked the plaintiff “How much' money did you get out of this chaotic organisation (meaning the self-determination for Ireland League)?” Plaintiff: “I think it came to about one thousand pounds.” Mr Finlay: “For what form of Government had the people of Ireland voted when you were addressing meetings ? ’ ’ Tho plaintiff replied ho did not know. Ho had not taken a great dial of interest in the history of Ireland subsequent to the War. He could not say ho had road all the cables. In reply to the Judge, the plaintiff said that a man like Michael Collins had to placate the strong section of Republicans opposed to his views. Michael Collins had told him that. That was the attitude ho adopted. His Honour: What was the defini tion of self-determination? Plaintiff: “It was to support flic choice of a Government on the Tines ox Australia and New Zealand.” Tho Court adjourned until to-morrow, difficult to reconcile the paradoxes of the law towards gambling, but its influence was so- pernicious, that if it were allowed to spread, it inculcated laziness and encouraged non-produe-tion so that when rampant, the authorities had taken firm action to suppress it. This being the second conviction defendant would be fined fifteen pounds and costs.