HALL SKELTON CASE.

Grey River Argus, 22 July 1926, Page 5

HALL SKELTON CASE.

AUCKLAND MEETING. Protest at Court’s Procedure TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE ALLEGED. AUCKLAND, July 21. A meeting was held in Auckland last night, and it caustically criticised the recent libel case in which Mr Hall Skelton figured (wherein Judge Stringer and a special jury heard his unsuccessful claim for damages against Henry 11. Seabrook and Thomas Farrell, printers, for alleged libel during last year’s election campaign, a circular issued by the Protestant, Political Association signed by Seabrook, as president of the Roskill group, in which district Potter and Skelton were Parliamentary candidates, having spoken of Skelton as having ” manifested sympathy with the enemies of the Empire, who wished to secure its overithrow. ” while a second cause of action was alleged matter in the ”New Zealand Sentinel,” which plaintiff claimed set him out as being disloyal, and as a representative of persons who held murder a sacred duty.)

Strong exception was taken by the meeting to the attitude of the Court throughout. The appointment of a Special Jury, after two definite fixtures before a Common Jury had been made, was severely commented upon. One spea’ker said: When the late Mr Massey took an action for libel, he applied for a Special Jury, and he was refused one, as Special Juries were ,only granted where expert knowledge was returned. Why was this exception made? A strong committee was appointed to carry out the objects of the resolutions that were carried. Resolutions as follows wer* carried: (1) That this meeting' presents its .sympathy to Mr and Mrs Hall Skelton and family in what they behove to be a grave miscarriage of justice inflicted on them in the recent libel action, Hall Skelton v. Seabrook, and pledges itself to find, from a National Fund, to be collected, all the costs in connection with tho case, and, later, to present a cheque from New Zealand sympathisers to mark their disapproval of .what is common belief among widespread public opinion that the case in question was a travesty of justice. (2) That this meeting will represent to Parliament, urgently, that legislation be introduced preventing any judge in future from granting a special jury in any libel action, it being contrary to the spirit and principles of law; as the jury, in this case, had no Liberal, no Labour, and no Irishman thereon, and, as such, it was not right that they should have been ask ed to judge where a strong political opponent was litigating. After plans for conducting the campaign were concluded, over £5O was subscribed in a few minutes to start .off.

It was announced that one sympathiser had already sent Mr Hall Skel ton a direct cheque for 25 g/ineas. and that others have followed suit.